Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair,

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barnet District Gas and Water Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MAGISTRATE, LAHORE (CENSURE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to state what action has been taken with regard to the Magistrate censured by the Chief Justice of Lahore in his judgment delivered on 18th November, 1927?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): No decision has yet been reached, the case being still under the consideration of the Punjab Government, who only recently received the full records.

DEPRESSED CLASSES.

Mr. WELLOCK: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the most recent estimate of the number of depressed classes in British India?

Mr. THURTLE: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India for the Government of India's estimate as to the numbers of the untouchable and depressed classes in India?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India inform me that the latest census figures indicate 43 millions as the number of members of the so-called depressed classes, and that from information provided in provincial educational reports they estimate that of these, some 29 millions are "untouchables" Neither term is capable of very precise definition; consequently these figures are somewhat indefinite.

Mr. WELLOCK: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if the Government was responsible for calling the recent conference of the depressed classes held at Delhi; and who paid the expenses of the delegates?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information, but have no reason to suppose that the Government took any part in the matter.

STATE COAL MINES.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the number of employés and tons of coal raised annually from the coal mines owned by the State railway department in India; and whether he will place in the Library any Report dealing with the finances and profits earned by these State mines?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix B in Volume of the latest Report by the Railway Board on Indian Railways, a copy of which is in the Library.

COAL AREAS (EDUCATION).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that 0in the State-owned coal areas at Giridih and Bokaro education for the children of the miners is free and compulsory; and whether these conditions obtain in any coal area in India operated by private concerns?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member probably refers to coal areas worked by Indian railway companies. From such information as I have been able to obtain I understand that it is not the case that in those areas education is free and compulsory.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the Noble Lord seen the reports in the bound volumes of
proceedings of the Institute of Mining Engineers in India, in which these statements are made?

Earl WINTERTON: No. I do not see any reason why I should do so. I do not read all these documents. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this particular question of the education of the children employed by the railway companies is the kind of matter which is frequently debated in the Assembly, within whose purview it really falls.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the Noble Lord inform the House whether there is any published document supporting his original statement that education is not compulsory in these State-owned coal areas?

Earl WINTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer, in which I state that from such information as I have been able to obtain I understand that it is not the case that in those areas education is free and compulsory. I am quite willing, on behalf of the hon. Gentleman, to make inquiries, but this is not really a, matter which concerns this House at all.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is not the hon. Gentleman who put this Question on the Paper under a misapprehension in using the term "state-owned"? These things are not really State-owned at all.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the observation of the hon. Gentleman, is it not the case that since the railways became State-owned the properties owned by these railways have also become State-owned?

Earl WINTERTON: All the railways did not become State-owned. Some of them are State-owned. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me privately and state what information he requires, I will obtain the information for him in my private capacity.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (ELECTORATE).

Mr. THURTLE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total number of the electorate of the nine European constituencies entitled to representation in the Indian legislative assembly?

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Member will refer to the Indian Electoral Return presented last year (Cmd. 2923) he will find the particulars he desires.

BENGAL CRIMINAL ORDINANCE ACT.

Mr. THURTLE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many persons are still under restraint of one form or another under the Bengal Criminal Ordinance Act; and how many of these have been under restraint for a longer period than six months?

Earl WINTERTON: The latest figures (15th March) are: In gaol, 11; in village domicile, 25; in home domicile, 8;externed from Bengal, or confined to certain areas in Bengal, 16;total under restraint, 60, or 64 Including 4 in gaol under Regulation III of 1818. I cannot give a positive answer to the last part of the question without-longer notice, but it is probable that the majority have been under restraint for more than six months.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the strong feeling that exists in India as to the continued detention of these men without trial, will not the Noble Lord now consider the releasing of them in order to produce a better feeling?

Earl WINTERTON: The policy has not changed in any way since I was last asked a question by the hon. Member last Session. That answer was to the effect that as and when it is safe to do so, from the point of view of public security, releases are being made of these people who are being detained.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that since he gave me that reply there has been a strong demand by the annual conference of the Labour Party that this should be done?

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid I am not very much concerned with what the annual conference of the Labour party thinks about law and order in India. There has been for the last two or three years a steady release of such prisoners as it was thought fit in the public interest to release.

MADRAS GOVERNMENT (MR. T. R. SASTRI).

Mr. LANSBURY: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any statement of the circumstances which led to the resigna-
tion of the Honourable Mr. T. R. Venkatarama Sastri from the law membership of the Madras Government two days after he was appointed?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend has been apprised of the circumstances.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the Noble Lord inform the House what are the circumstances which led to this resignation?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not quite sure that it is in order to discuss across the Floor of the House the reasons for the resignation of a member of another Government within the Empire. But I may tell the hon. Gentleman that it was due to a redistribution of portfolios in the Executive Council—a matter which was entirely in the Governor's discretion. The hon. member, Mr. Sastri, although appointed, had not begun his duty. He disagreed with the redistribution of portfolios and in consequence resigned. This is a matter wholly within the competence of the Governor, and, I contend, does not really concern us in this House.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that this House is responsible for the doings of the Governor?

Earl WINTERTON: No, by no means. It is impossible to deal with such a very wide and general question in a short answer. This House is only responsible in respect of certain of the Governor's executive acts, not in respect of all of them. He has a Commission from the King.

MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE

Mr. WELLOCK: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the sum of 56,72,49,000 rupees devoted to military and naval expenditure in the current Budget Estimates for India includes expenditure on the Air Force and on strategic railways; and, if not, what is the amount of such expenditure?

Earl WINTERTON: The figure quoted by the hon. Member is that provided in the Budget Estimates for 1927-28. It includes Air Force expenditure, but does not include expenditure on strategic railways. The Budget Estimate of the net loss on working such lines in that year was Rs. 46,25,000 (1346,875). The corresponding figures in the Budget for 1928-29 are: Gross military expenditure?
Rs. 58,04,12,000 (143,530,900); net loss on working strategic lines, Rs. 27,62,000 (1207,150).

Oral Answers to Questions — DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with regard to the Dead Sea salt concessions, he will take steps to bring about a merger of the various interests concerned, backed up by a British group?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend means the interests of the various applicants for this concession. I am afraid I am not prepared to intervene in the manner suggested.

Colonel HOWARRD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an offer has been made by a powerfully-backed British scheme for a merger of these interests, and does he not consider that it would be far preferable to the speculative possibilities of M. Novamesky?

Mr. AMERY: If the applicants like to merge their interests, that is their concern. I cannot arrange it for them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is this not a case of M. Novamesky having done all the pioneer work before the anti-Semites were aware of the salt deposits, and that now they want to come in and scoop the pool?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has made any official inquiries as to the syndicate behind M. Novamesky in the Dead Sea salt concessions; and whether he can give their names?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, the discussions have not reached a point which would enable me to inform the House of the names of their financial supporters.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether secrecy is one of the conditions of their offer?

Mr. AMERY: No, not at all. As the discussion has not yet arrived at concession, and it is not certain yet who are their supporters, obviously it would
be unfair to give the names of people who have not yet definitely decided to commit themselves.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any reason why these gentlemen should be treated any differently from others who are applying to the Government for leave to exploit a concession in a mandated area?

Mr. AMERY: I do not know that that arises. The question is the names of the backers of this particular applicant. Undoubtedly, if a definite agreement were arrived at, it would be a matter for the information of the House as to who stands behind the agreement. But the matter is still entirely unsettled.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will my right hon. Friend see that the interests of British agriculture are properly safeguarded?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (RUTENBERG CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the Rutenberg concession in Palestine, he can state the amount of the capital that was needed to finance this concession; when, and on what dates, this was obtained; whether a loan was made under the Trades Facilities Act; and whether the original conditions under which this concession was granted were completely carried out?

Mr. AMERY: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Jordan electricity concession, not to the Jaffa electricity concession. I understand that the Palestine Electric Corporation, which has an authorised capital of £1,000,000, has, up to the present, issued shares to the extent of £657,951, and that arrangements have been made for a loan to the Corporation, guaranteed by the Treasury under the Trade Facilities Act of £250,000. I do not know on what dates the issued share capital was subscribed. The concession was granted on 5th March, 1926, and work is in progress. Under Clause 7 of the concession it has to be completed by 5th March, 1931, unless the period is extended for special reasons.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this loan
under the Trade Facilities Act was in accordance with the Regulations, in mandated territory?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (PROSPECTING LICENCES).

Mr. DAY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of applications that have been received by the Government of Sierra Leone for exclusive prospecting licences in connection with the discovery of platinum in that Colony?

Mr. AMERY: According to information furnished by the Governor in February the number was then 17. He anticipated that further applications would be received, but that they- would not be many.

Mr. DAY: Are any of these licences not exclusively granted, and, if so, how many?

Mr. AMERY: I would require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FEDERATED MALAY STATES (SECONDARY SCHOOLS).

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of secondary schools that exist- exclusively for Malays in the Federated Malay States; and whether it is intended to increase this number?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that I am unable to furnish the information. Some little time ago I asked the Governor for a comprehensive report on educational policy, including the question of the higher education of Malays. He will doubtless furnish his Report after he has had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Under-Secretary of State, who is now on a visit to the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (CONSCRIPTION).

Lieut.-Colonel THOM: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the attitude of the British Government towards the introduction of conscription in Iraq?

Mr. AMERY: The British Government do not propose to interfere in the matter either to encourage the. Iraq Government
to introduce conscription or to prevent them from doing so. The British Government are not convinced, however, that the introduction of conscription would be acceptable to the people of Iraq as a whole or would be to the advantage of the country. It has been made clear to the Iraq Government that, if disturbances arose as a consequence of the introduction of the measure, we could not contemplate the employment of British troops to enforce its application.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (COMMUNAL FRANOHISE).

Mr. SNELL: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement with regard to the appointment of the five Indian members to the Legislative Council of Kenya Colony; whether it was with his approval that a communal franchise for Indian electors was recently substituted for the policy of nomination introduced in 1924; whether he is aware that the Indian community, as a mark of protest against the communal franchise, has boycotted the elections, with the result that, with the exception of one Indian elected as an unopposed return, there are now no Indian representatives on the Legislative Council; and whether he will consider the advisability of returning to the policy adopted in 1924, on the recommendation of the Colonial Indian Committee, by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies and re-introduce the practice of nomination with regard to the Indian members of the Council?

Mr. AMERY: The communal franchise, approved in the White Paper of 1923, was accepted, without prejudice, by the Indian community. They subsequently withdrew their acceptance, and the later events were explained in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on 26th March. I regret that I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

NATIVE JUVENILES EMPLOYMENT ACT.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, seeing that under the Juveniles Employment Act of Southern Rhodesia
the maximum age for such juveniles was fixed at 14 years without any limit downwards, the Government of Southern Rhodesia has taken into consideration the advisability of fixing such lower limit, and with what results?

Mr. AMERY: The hon. Member will see from pages 36 and 37 of the Command Paper relative to the Southern Rhodesia Native Juveniles Employment Act, 1926, issued on the 16th April, that instructions were sent out last January by the Government of Southern Rhodesia to all Native Commissioners in the Colony to make it clear that the Government do not approve of children under 10 years of age entering into contracts of service. It will also be seen from the covering despatch from the Governor of Southern Rhodesia, which is printed on pages 35-6 of the Command Paper, that the question of amending the Act in order to provide that native juveniles under 10 years of age shall not be permitted to enter into contracts of service has been under the consideration of the Southern Rhodesia Government. I am not, however, aware what decision has been reached in the matter.

Mr. BAKER: Is this Act supposed to apply to children without parents or guardians; and, if so, why is it that in the White Paper referred to, it is distinctly stated that the Native Commissioners may return children to their parents?

Mr. AMERY: I think I ought to have notice of that question.

EXECUT1ONS.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what were the ages and what were the offences committed by the three boys in their teens who were hanged in Southern Rhodesia, to whom reference is made in the Parliamentary Paper, Cmd. 3076; and whether there is any minimum age at which boys may be executed in this Dominion?

Mr. AMERY: I have no details regarding the cases referred to in the first part of the question. As to the second part, the Southern Rhodesia Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act, 1926, exempts persons under the age of 16 years from the provisions relating to the death sentence.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the offences of these three lads?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTEES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how much of the guarantees called up to meet the deficit on the British Empire Exhibition have been paid; how much remains to be paid; how much of the total liability falls on private persons; how much on His Majesty's Government; and whether, in view of the stated benefit to the country from the holding of the exhibition, he will recommend the remission of the amount due from private persons in whole or in part?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Before that question is answered, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that, instead of there being any liability, a sum of money has already been remitted to all the guarantors in full discharge of liability?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Speaking in general terms, I am aware of that fact. I was going to suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that as the answer contains a large number of figures, he should allow me to circulate it in the OFFICI ST, REPORT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am quite prepared to have the figures circulated, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would he good enough to answer the last part of the question?

Mr. HACKING: Yes. The liquidation has now been completed, and I am not prepared to recommend His Majesty's Government to assume any further liability.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Could the hon. Gentleman not ascertain the feeling of the House on this matter before it is finally closed? I believe I am right in saying that there is a widespread feeling that the private persons who, out of public spirit, came forward, should not now be mulcted in these unexpectedly heavy sums.

Mr. HACKING: It was understood that, if the exhibition was not a financial success, then certain persons would make up the deficiency, or a portion of the deficiency. That was the clear understanding, and I cannot see the value of getting guarantors at all, if you are not going to insist upon their contract being carried out. It would be wrong, I think, having obtained other guarantors, that the Government should in any event be responsible for the whole of the liability.

Following is the answer:

The total amount of the guarantees called up to meet the deficiency on the exhibition was £1,844,986 17s., of which £1,840,838 14s. was paid, the liquidators being unable to collect calls to the amount of £4,138 3s. A refund was ultimately made at the rate of 9.82d. in the £, the total amount refunded being £85,954 13s. 6d. The net amount paid by H.M. Government was £847,745 16s., and by private guarantors 2907,138 4s. 6d., making £1,754,884 Os. 6d. in all, the difference between this amount and the figure £1,755,661 1s. 8d. given in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member on the 3rd April being accounted for by interest paid by certain guarantors. The liquidation has now been completed. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to recommend that His Majesty's Government should assume any further liability.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERIES RESEARCH (CHARTERED TRAWLERS).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the period of time for which the steam trawler, "Cicely Blanche, "of Milford Haven, and the steam trawler, "Ben Miedie," of Aberdeen, have been chartered for use in connection with research work; the terms of the charter hire, including the sum payable per month; and the services his department will receive in return therefor?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The "Cicely Blanche "has been chartered by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research from the end of April until the end of August next on repayment of all the owner's out-of-pocket costs and 2125 a month: and the "Ben Meidie" for a period of
six months from about the end of April with the option of continuing thereafter subject to one month's notice on either side, on repayment of all owner's out-of-pocket costs and £100 a month. In each case the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will reinstate the vessel on the conclusion of the research. In return, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research will have the right to instal plant for research, to have scientific staff aboard the ships, and to direct fishing operations and methods of handling and stowage. All sales of fish will be credited to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it not the case that the estimate of £18,000 mentioned in the recent Debate on fisheries was for these two vessels?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would require notice in order to go into the question of what other expenditure was covered by that figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. HURD: 26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in England and Wales this year have originated among pigs; whether there is evidence to show that one source of infection lies in the offal from imported meat carcases that is fed to pigs; and, if so what measures he proposes to take?

Mr. GUINNESS: Out of 91 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease confirmed this year, in 29 cases the disease originated in pigs, but 25 of these were traced to infection from other outbreaks. Of the remaining four cases, in only two was there any evidence that infection may have been contracted by the pigs corning into contact with butchers' waste containing meat scraps, which may have been of foreign or English origin, but there was no proof that this was the source of infection. The Foot and Mouth Disease (Boiling of Animal Foodstuffs) Order, as amended in February last, not only makes it an offence to bring any meat, bones, offal, etc., into contact with animals, or to feed them to animals, until the materials have been boiled, but also makes it an offence to permit animals
to be brought into contact with the materials, until the latter have been boiled.

Mr. HURD: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give instructions for samples of imported chilled carcases to be tested for foot-and-mouth disease infection from time to time, so that the public may be assured that disease is not being introduced through South American meat?

Mr. GUINNESS: The theoretical possibility of the introduction of infection of foot-and-mouth disease in chilled carcases has already been demonstrated by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee. The Boiling of Animal Foodstuffs Order of 1927 is designed to prevent any infection which may in fact be introduced in this way from reaching animals in this country. I am not prepared to give instructions for the systematic testing of carcases, for which disease-proof premises and additional staff would be required, involving considerable expenditure, in order to test the existence of a contingency which has been admitted and which has already been provided against.

Mr. HURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be in the interest of the consumers to suggest the desirability of the Research Council making tests from time to time?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think consumers would be very much inconvenienced by any interference with the supply of 8,000,000 quarters of beef and 3,700,000 carcases of sheep now coming in from the Argentine.

Mr. HURD: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the orders at present in force to check the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease, such as those requiring the burning of imported straw packing and meat wrappings, are an effective safeguard; and how many prosecutions have been instituted under these orders and with what result?

Mr. GUINNESS: The orders requiring the destruction of hay and straw used as packing for imported goods and the sterilisation of meat wrappings before being brought into contact with animals are calculated to be an effective safeguard against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease by any such materials
which may be contaminated by the virus. The enforcement of these orders is a duty of the local authorities. I have no exact information as to the number of prosecutions which have been instituted under these orders by the local authorities, but 19 prosecutions have been notified to my Department, resulting in 13 convictions.

WAGES, ESSEX (PUBLIC HOLIDAYS).

Mr. KELLY: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the new order, dated 28th October, 1927, under the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, 1924, which has come into force in the county of Essex, under which certain overtime payments are fixed for Good Friday, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day; whether any complaint has been received from a trade union officer in North and East Essex reporting evasion of these payments, and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to make this order effective; and, in view of the position caused by the farmers refusing to pay in accordance with the order, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. GUINNESS: Complaints have been received from workers' organisations that certain employers in Essex have failed to pay wages in accordance with the orders made under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act for the weeks in which Good Friday and Easter Monday fell, and I have instructed an inspector to make investigations with a view to taking such action as may be necessary to secure the observance of the minimum rates fixed in the orders.

CREDITS.

Colonel BURTON: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the number of bankruptcies and deeds of assignment among farmers, the scheme for Government agricultural credits is now complete; when it will be introduced; and when the scheme will come into force?

Mr. GUINNESS: I hope to introduce at an early date the necessary legislation in connection with the Government scheme for agricultural credit, but I cannot at present say when the scheme will come into force.

Colonel BURTON: Is such a scheme yet complete?

Mr. GUINESS: Yes. The Bill is drafted.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is nearly two years since this was promised and that farmers have been suffering by not having it?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, my hon. and gallant Friend has brought that fact to my notice.

CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTS).

Mr. LOOKER: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the number of cattle imported from Canada has fallen off from 110,155 in 1925 to 7,669 in 1927; and whether his Department is in possession of any facts to account for the diminished numbers imported?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware of the decline in the importation of cattle from Canada, and I understand that this is due to the fall in cattle prices in this country, combined with the existence of a more remunerative market in the United States of America.

Mr. LOOKER: Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope of the fulfilment of the statement by Liberal and Labour speakers at recent by-elections that importation of this cattle has resulted in a reduction of the price of beef by 6d. a 1b.?

Mr. GUINNESS: No such reduction was ever brought about, even in the early days.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say the reason for the falling off is the fall in the price of cattle? Is not that brought about by the fall in the price of meat?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for individual opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (WAGES).

Mr. W. BAKER: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what steps are taken by his Department to see that the provisions of the fair-wages Clause are strictly adhered to by all contractors; whether his attention has been called to a recent
case in Bristol in which, as the result of representations, it was found that incorrect rates were being paid and arrears of pay were admitted to be due to some of the men employed on a Government contract; and whether he will take steps to ensure that a close watch will be kept to prevent irregularities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): In reply to the first part of the question, a fair wages Clause is embodied in all contracts placed by the Department, and if there is reason to believe that any departure from the provisions of the Clause is occurring, an immediate, inspection is made of the wages books of the contractor. In the event of any underpayment being discovered, the contractor is required to pay the arrears of wages due to, the men concerned, and if he fails to do so his name is removed from the Department's list and other Government Departments informed. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the last part of the question, the First Commissioner is satisfied that the procedure outlined provides a reasonable safeguard against irregularties, but he will always be glad to cause inquiries to be made into any ease to which his attention is invited.

Mr. BAKER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that since the previous questions I have received a large number of complaints from men who were employed on this job and who received even less than the figures that were given in the official reply, and will he inquire into all these individual cases?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I told the hon. Member that I should be glad to inquire into any case which was brought to my notice. As far as this particular case is concerned, the employer has already agreed to pay up the arrears.

Mr. BAKER: Will you let him off like that?

Oral Answers to Questions — DUNKERY BEACON.

Miss BONDFIELD: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department., as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that Dunkery Beacon is in the market;
and whether, in view of the danger that this historic spot may be lost to the people, he will have it scheduled as an ancient monument?

Mr. W. BAKER: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the proposed sale of the Cutcombe estate, which includes Dunkery Beacon; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to securing this hill, with its historic monuments, for the nation?

Sir V. HENDERSON: My Noble Friend has seen a notice in the Press regarding Dunkery Beacon. He is quite prepared to schedule the monuments in question, but regrets that no funds are available for their purchase by the State.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS (CANADA).

Mr. DAY: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any request from the Canadian Government that the correspondence passing between Canada and Great Britain concerning the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty should be published; and, if so, what reply the British Government has made?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. A request in the sense indicated has been received from the Canadian Government, and a reply will be sent after I have had an opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. DAY: Have any requests been received from any of the other Dominion Governments, from South Africa or Australia?

Mr. AMERY: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH LEGATION, PERU.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to secure suitable residential and office accommodation for His Majesty's Minister at Lima, Peru?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I am happy to be able to state that the Peruvian Government have very generously provided free of charge a site for a new British Legation house in Lima. Building operations will be commenced on the site as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May we take it that the thanks of His Majesty's Government will be conveyed to the Peruvian Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Oh, yes.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And will it be seen that a worthy building is erected, because it will help our trade in South America very much?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH CONCESSION, TIENTSIN.

Major KINDERSLEY: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a resolution, passed by a, recent meeting of the ratepayers of the Tientsin British Concession, warning His Majesty's Government that, by proceeding further with the scheme of rendition at the present time, they will inflict incalculable loss upon their own nationals and give genuine satisfaction to nobody; what answer, if any, has been sent to the resolution; and whether negotiations for rendition are being continued and, if so, with whom?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have not received a copy of any such resolution. Negotiations have not yet been resumed, but the British ratepayers at Tientsin, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, have proposed amendments to the existing Regulations abolishing all discrimination against Chinese in respect of the franchise and the composition of the council. A recent report in the Press states that these amendments have been duly carried and were very favourably received by the Chinese.

NANKING (SALT ADMINISTRATION).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arrangements recently made with the Nanking
Government for the restoration of the salt administration in the territory controlled by that Government are operating satisfactorily; and whether the Nanking authorities have fulfilled their undertakings with regard to payments in respect of the foreign loan service?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In accordance with an arrangement negotiated between the Associate Chief Inspector of the Salt Administration and the Nanking authorities, the latter ordered the reopening, as from the 1st February, of the four District Inspectorates in the area actually under their control. Difficulties have arisen in the carrying out of this arrangement, and discussions are in progress with a view to meeting them. I have no information as to what, if any, payments on account of loan services have been made during the few weeks since this arrangement was inaugurated.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGUESE INDIA (BRITISH INDIAN SUBJECTS).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Pundit Anandamurti and two assistants, all British-Indian subjects, have been arrested and deported from Portuguese India, and threatened with life imprisonment if they again enter Portuguese territory, for having converted 4,000 Roman Catholics to Hinduism; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to having representations made to the Portuguese authorities against this action, in view of the fact that numerous Roman Catholic priests and subjects of Portuguese and Indo Portuguese origin are permitted to live in British India with full religious liberty?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no information on this subject, but I will ask my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, to make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABANDONED MINES, CORNWALL AND DEVON.

Mr. KELLY: 40.
asked the secretary for Mines if the catalogue of abandoned mines, so far as Cornwall and Devon are
concerned, is now completed, with all available plans and information; and, if so, will it be published immediately?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The collection of information of plans of abandoned mines is almost finished, so far as Cornwall and Devon are concerned, but the indexing and arrangement of the information will take some time, and I cannot say yet when the catalogue will be ready for publication. In the meantime my Department will welcome any inquiries about these plans, and will answer them in so far as the information collected enables this to be done.

Mr. KELLY: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman discharged any of the men who were engaged upon this work, and, by discharging them, held up this catalogue?

Commodore KING: No. The preparation of the catalogue has not been held up in any way.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN ASYLUM BOARD.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to limit his nominations to the Metropolitan Asylum Board to those resident in the County of London, in view of the importance of the present and prospective duties of the Board?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The qualification of a nominated manager of the Board is prescribed in Section 167 (4) of the Poor Law Act, 1927, and confines nominations to justices of the peace resident within the asylum district and ratepayers assessed to the general rate therein.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far the Asylum Board area differs from that of the administrative county?

Sir K. WOOD: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has assured himself that all the members he has nominated to the Metropolitan Asylum Board have the necessary qualification; and whether he will ensure that all the
members shortly to be nominated by him shall possess the necessary qualification tinder the Acts?

Sir K. WOOD: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

OPEN-AIR MARKETS.

Mr. SAVERY: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the complaints that the conditions under which farm produce has to be sold in some open-air markets are injurious to the health of the vendors and have a damaging effect upon their goods, he will say what steps he is taking to ensure more hygienic conditions in markets?

Sir K. WOOD: I have not received any such complaints. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of some of the cases which he has in mind, my right hon. Friend will consider the matter.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that some produce is much better kept in the fresh open air than in the stuffy air of a shop?

HOP-PICKERS' CAMPS.

Mr. BRIANT: 52 and 53.
asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will consider the introduction of a Bill for the compulsory registration of hop-pickers' camps so that adequate provision for the health and comfort of the workers may be assured before such camps are opened;
(2) if the reports of the inspectors of his Department who visited the hop fields during the last season confirm the statements of the medical officer of health for Kent as to the conditions in the hop-pickers' camps; and if the reports will be available to the public or Members of the House?

Sir K. WOOD: Though there has been an improvement in recent years, I cannot say that my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the conditions existing in the hop fields. The reports of officers of my Department are confidential documents and there appears no sufficient reason for their publication in this case. The whole question is receiving my right hon. Friend's further consideration, but I may observe that compulsory registration of camps would not necessarily provide any solution of the difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

ABLE-BODIED YOUNG PERSONS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the number of young persons under the age of 30 who are using casual wards; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending boards of guardians to make separate provision for such persons outside the casual wards and also to take steps to organise co-operation between the Employment Exchange authorities and boards of guardians for the purpose of finding these young persons employment or by any other means save them from the inevitable demoralisation which tramping about the country workless involves?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that the proportion of young men relieved in casual wards is higher than it has been in the past or that there is any lack of cooperation between the Poor Law and Employment Exchange authorities in this connection. The administration of the relief of the casual poor is, however, a matter which is constantly under my right hon. Friend's consideration, and he will not fail to keep the hon. Member's representations in mind.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to inquire into the advantages that have accrued from the action of Mr. Frank Gray and also the advantages that have come to men who have gone to the shelter on the Thames Embankment run by the Metropolitan Asylum Board?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes. If the hon. Member will send me any particulars I will see that they are considered.

HOSPITALS AND INFIRMARIES (NURSES).

Mr. BRIANT: 51.
asked the Minister of Health the number of patients per nurse in Poor Law hospitals or infirmaries compared with those in voluntary hospitals?

Sir K. WOOD: The information requested by the hon. Member is not available. I am, however, sending him a copy of a reply given to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) in 1926.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET RUSSIA (MILITARY PREPARATIONS).

Sir F. HALL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue a memorandum giving such information as is available with regard to the preparations which are being made by the Soviet Government for military, naval, and aerial warfare?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): It would not be in the public interest to issue a memorandum such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (EARL OF BIRKENHEAD'S VISIT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the recent visit of the secretary of State for India to Germany was undertaken for official purposes; and whether he and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs consulted with the Secretary of State for India prior to the visit as to the public pronouncements to be made on matters of policy affecting His Majesty's Government?

Mr. JOHNSTON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for India was engaged in any official mission on behalf of His Majesty's Government during his recent visit to Berlin?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; the visit of my Noble Friend was a purely private one.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the reports of his Noble Friend's speeches in the German Press and their repercussions in. the French Press, and will he see that his denial is given some publicity, at any rate, in the English papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen nothing that my Noble Friend said except general sentiments as to the desirability of living on peaceable terms with our neighbours.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then was it only in his private capacity that his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India was advocating a German-Franco-British alliance against Russia?

HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Because it is not the policy of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (WAR RENUNCIATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to consult Parliament before any definite answer is returned to the Note of the Government of the United States of America inviting His Majesty's Government to adhere to a treaty for the outlawry of war?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING SERVICES (PURCHASES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the three fighting services are very large purchasers, if not always of the same articles, at any rate very often in the same markets, he will consider the establishment of one contracts branch for all three services, in order that closer co-operation and economy may be effected?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I explained on the 27th March, there is already the closest co-operation between the contract departments of the Fighting Services, the Post Office and the Office of Works, and the Treasury; and, having regard to the report of the Committee on the Amalgamation of Services common to the Navy, Army and Air Force, the establishment of a central contracts department is not considered advisable.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the cooperation could not be closer and more advantageous?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, we have been working towards that both in that and other directions for the last three years.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING AND VALUATION, LONDON.

Mr. NAYLOR: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a communication from the London County Council urging him to introduce a comprehensive measure dealing generally with
rating and valuation in London; and whether, in view of the long time this matter has been under consideration and the desirability of the alterations in the Law being affected in time for the quinquennial valuation in 1930, 'he will introduce the Bill during the present Session?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received the communication to which the hon. Member refers. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer him to the statement which my right hon. Friend made in this House on the Second Reading of the Rating and Valuation Bill now under consideration in another place.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNIONS (GRANTS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 54 and 55.
asked the Minister of Labour (1), whether, with reference to Command Paper No. 3056, Return of Expenditure of Registered Trade Unions, he can state what grants are meant in the column of expenditure headed Grants to other bodies;
(2), whether, with reference to the Return of Expenditure by the Agricultural Workers Trades Union in 1925 and 1926, as published in Command Paper No. 3056, he can state what the bodies were which received these grants; and, if so, whether he will arrange with the Chief Registrar that in future years information regarding recipients of grants shall be included in the Return submitted to Parliament?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The items included under the heading "Grants to other bodies etc." are for the most part grants to Federations, other Trade Unions, Trades Councils and Congresses, whether by way of levy or otherwise. There are also included subscriptions to hospitals, convalescent homes and other charitable institutions and transfers of funds between unions on amalgamation or transfer of engagements.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the expenditure referred to in question No. 55. To include these particulars in the Returns would involve the publication of a mass of detail and this would not be consistent with the nature of the Returns which are intended to give a brief summary of the available figures.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that, in the case of this Union, during that year the grants to other bodies doubled the total amount of benefit to the members of the Union; and does he think that that is right?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is entirely a matter of opinion. As I have stated in my answer, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the items which my hon. and gallant Friend wanted.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it possible for the executive of one union to make grants of its funds to other unions; and is there no provision against this misappropriation of funds?

Mr. BETTERTON: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, that is a question of law about which I am not acquainted.

Mr. KELLY: Has the hon. Gentleman examined the returns of the employers' trade unions, and noted that the percentage of grants to benefits is even greater than in any of the trade unions?

Following are the details:

The bodies which received grants are as follow:—



1925.
1926.



£
£


Trade Union Congress Distress Fund
—
1,000


Trade Union Congress Affiliation Fees
407
371


Miners' Federation of Great Britain Distress
—
1,852


National Council of Labour Colleges
5
30


International Landworkers' Federation
10
—


Other bodies
44
21



466
3,274

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (INDUSTRIAL TRANSFERENCE BOARD).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 56.
asked the Minister of Labour when it is expected that the Report of the Industrial Transference Board will be laid upon the Table?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark Central (Mr. Day) on the 18th April,
no formal Report has yet been made by the. Board though I have reason to believe that it is the Board's intention to make one at a later stage. I may remind the hon. Member that the Board are not primarily a Committee of Inquiry whose sole purpose is the presentation of a Report, but an advisory body with continuing functions. In this capacity the Board are in constant touch with the Departments concerned with the transfer problem, and in particular with the Ministry of Labour and the Overseas Settlement Department. Apart from private initiative, it is, in the main, through the Employment Exchange machinery, the training centres for juveniles and adults, both for home and overseas, and the oversea migration machinery that actual transfers of labour can be effected, and these agencies are operating in close association with the Board.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Have the Board done anything practical yet, and if so, what?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes; that question has been asked many times before, and if the hon. Gentleman will look at the reply given by my right hon. Friend on the 7th March last, he will find an answer.

Mr. PALING: Would it not be advisable to get the Report as early as possible, so that we may know what they have done?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, I have no doubt that we shall get the Report as soon as possible.

Mr. KELLY: Do we understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Transference Board will deal with juveniles, as well as with adults?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, certainly. What I said was:
It is in the main through the Employment Exchange machinery, the training centres for juveniles and adults … that actual transfers of labour can be effected.

Mr. DAY: Does the hon. Gentleman wish us to understand that he has no knowledge of what the Board are doing until he gets a full Report?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I do not say that. What I say is that, when this question appeared on the Paper, I made
it my business, to find out if it were the intention of the Board to issue a report, and, as I say in the answer, I have reason to believe that it is their intention.

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the importance attached by the Government to this Board, is it not desirable to have information at once?

Mr. BETTERTON: It wou'd be much better to wait for the report.

Mr. SHINWELL: When do the Government expect that the investigations of this Board will be completed?

Mr. BETTERTON: That I cannot say, but their report will be made when their investigations are completed.

Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that we cannot have the report just yet, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Board have succeeded in transferring anybody?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is exactly the question asked by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. HoreBelisha), and, as I say, the reply will be found in the answer given by my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEA SALES (BONUSES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received complaints against the growing practice of certain companies and individuals selling tea on the promise of large cash bonuses to their customers which are not forthcoming; and whether any prosecutions have taken place?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Except for a communication of the 18th instant from the hon. Member, no complaint has been received by me during the last year or two. No criminal offence is as a rule committed and proceedings are therefore not possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARKHURST PRISON (ATTEMPTED ESCAPES).

Mr. LANSBURY: 61.
asked the Home Secretary the number of prisoners detained at Parkhurst Prison who have made attempts to escape during the past four years; the punishment inflicted on
each man after recapture; how many men have been punished for breach of prison rules arid regulations during the same period; the nature of such punishments; is it the practice to inflict corporal punishment for offences committed in this prison; and has he received any complaints from prisoners asking for inquiries into the administration of the prison in respect of punishment and discipline in general?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will have published in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the various particulars for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. DAY: If anyone makes a complaint, does it come direct to the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: l am answering the hon. Member's question very fully, and I do not think that I ought, by way of supplementary questions, to anticipate the statement which I ant circulating.

Mr. DAY: That is the last part of the question, and no reply has been given.

Following is tire statement:

In the four years ended 31st March, 1928, 17 convicts made attempts to escape from Parkhurst Prison. The punishments awarded by the board of visitors were close confinement., with punishment diet, for periods varying from nine to 28 days, and loss of marks for stage privileges, and for remission, varying from 720 marks (which are equivalent to 120 days) to 1,440 marks (which are equivalent to 240 days). In the same period 558 convicts at Parkhurst were punished for various prison offences. The punishments were those prescribed by the statutory rules, namely, close confinement, punishment diet, loss of stage and remission mails, and, in six cases of gross violence to officers, corporal punishment. In this, as in any ether prison, corporal punishment can only be inflicted for gross personal violence to an officer and only if such punishment is ordered after an inquiry on oath by the board of visitors and the board's order is confirmed by myself. Prisoners at this prison, as at all prisons, are at liberty to petition the Secretary of State, and such petitions frequently contain complaints of various kinds. All such complaints are considered, and any necessary action is taken at the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARRESTED IRISHMEN (RUSSIAN MONEY).

Mr. DALTON: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received any communications from Russian banks in London regarding their alleged financial relations with Irish gunmen; and, if so, whether he will now make a further statement on the matter?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 63 and 65.
asked the Home Secretary (1) if he has received any explanation or protest from the Russian banking institution to which the notes in connection with the Irish gumen were traced; and, if so, what are the contents of such communication;
(2) on what date were Bank of England notes found in the possession of Irish gunmen arrested before Easter for keeping firearms without a licence; were all the notes found on the prisoners traced hack to a Russian banking institution in this country or were there any that had not passed through that institution; on what date were they last in possession of the Russian bank; did the police investigation disclose among what other institutions or persons the notes had been circulated during a period of four weeks before the arrest; and were the notes so traced quite openly stamped by the Russian bank with its name or identification marks?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The substance of the communications sent to me by the two Russian banks established in this country has already appeared in the Press. I propose to avail myself of their offers to supply any information in their possession hearing upon this matter, and I am replying to-day in that sense to their communications. Pending the conclusion of any further investigation that may result, I do not think that it would be in the public interest to furnish the particulars asked for by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala).

Mr. DALTON: May we have an assurance, pending these investigations, and pending a further discussion in this House, that no further interference will take place with Anglo-Russian trade?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really do not know what the hon. Member means.

Mr. DALTON: May I ask the question in another form? May we have an
assurance that there will be no more raids, similar to that upon Arcos, and no more interference with persons who are desirous of carrying on trade between this country and Russia for the benefit and employment of people in this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member may be assured that the Secretary of State in this matter will not act unless he has information equally as good as he had in the ease of Arcos.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been able to trace the source of the leakage of confidential information from his Department to the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley)?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite satisfied—in fact I have applied to the hon. and gallant Member personally—that the information did not come either from my Department or from the police.

Mr. PALING: Had any report of these financial operations appeared in the Press, or in any other public way, before the question was asked?

Sir W. J0YNSON-HICKS: No, certainly not—not to my knowledge.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the right hon. Gentleman says that his information is as good as before, is it not a fact that in his previous raid on the Arcos Bank he found nothing of any value at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET SHIP "TOVARISCH" (SHORE LEAVE).

Sir F. HALL: 64.
asked the Home Secretary whether temporary shore leave is still being granted to persons from the Soviet ship "Tovarisch," which put into Southampton some time ago for repairs; if he can state how much longer it is expected that these repairs will take to complete; whether it is proposed to continue these landing facilities so long as the "Tovarisch" remains at Southampton; and whether any precautions are taken to ensure that the use of these facilities is properly safeguarded?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answers to the four parts of the question are as follow: (1) Yes. (2) I am
informed that the ship will be towed to Leningrad for repairs when that port is open in the course of the next few weeks. (3) Yes, as long as the conduct of the persons concerned continues satisfactory. (4) Yes, due precautions are taken and nothing has occurred to suggest that any facilities granted have been abused.

Sir F. HALL: Is it necessary for some weeks to elapse before this ship can be towed for repairs to Leningrad?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry that it is not within the power of the Home Office to deal with the Russian climate.

Sir F. HALL: On the other hand, does my right hon. Friend recognise the fact that many people living in the vicinity of where the ship is lying at the present time are extremely annoyed to think that these people are here?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is there any reason to suppose that the conduct of the persons involved is other than satisfactory?

Sir F. HALL: Is it not rather extraordinary to see the interest displayed in this matter—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for hon. Members to give expression to their personal opinions.

Mr. THURTLE: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask for your protection, Sir? Arising out of the Home Secretary's original reply, will he see that the necessary precautions are taken to ensure that none of these wicked sailors get into a Primrose League meeting?

Sir F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not surprised at the attention and care which are given by hon. Members above the Gangway to these people?

Oral Answers to Questions — TATE-GALLERY (TURNER DRAWINGS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 68.
asked the. Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that a decree of the Court of Chancery, dated 19th March, 1856, confided the Turner drawings to
the care of the trustees of the National Gallery, meaning the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, and that these trustees are now a separate body from the trustees of the Tate Gallery, he will restore them, in accordance with the original decree?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Though a separate body of trustees has been set up for the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, those trustees include the Director of the National Gallery, Trafalgar Square, and representatives of the trustees of that Gallery. Under the Treasury Minutes which govern the position, all the works of art at Millbank remain vested in the Trustees and Director of the National Gallery, Trafalgar Square, who retain their full legal responsibilities and have power to remove pictures to or from Millbank. The present arrangements, therefore, with regard to the Turner drawings are in accordance with the terms of the Chancery decree.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do I understand that the responsibility for storing these drawings during the recent flood was that of the trustees of the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square and not of the trustees of the Millbank Gallery?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will refer to my reply, he will see that I did riot deal with the storage matter.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What supervision do they exercise as to where these drawings are put?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think, if the hon. Gentleman will read the answer, he will find that the information I have given covers that point.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to go into this point: If there is not room for these drawings in either the Tate Gallery or the National Gallery in any place except the cellar, where they have reposed for the last 50 years, will he give an opportunity for some of the provincial art galleries to exhibit them?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am perfectly certain that if application is made by provincial art galleries for permission to exhibit these drawings the trustees will give any application very favourable consideration.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these drawings are kept intact and not divided up?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the hon. Gentleman taking any action with regard to the Lane pictures?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TRAFFIC.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the progress of the proposals for the co-ordination of London pasenger transport; whether the conditions upon which the main-line railway companies are to enter the scheme have been decided; whether agreement has been reached. with the London County Council and the other parties concerned; and whether there is any immediate likelihood of an agreed scheme?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Upon receipt of the Report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee containing proposals for the co-ordination of London traffic, I thought it right as a preliminary step to invite the observations of the various transport agencies concerned (including the London County Council and other important local authorities) upon the principle of the proposals. By my direction the replies received were referred to the Committee in order that they might be assisted to ascertain whether it would be possible to work out an agreed scheme and at the same time arrangements were also made for discussion between representatives of the Committee and of the main line railways. Negotiations are, I understand, proceeding, and, meanwhile, I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the very great importance of this matter, and of the opinion which is gaining ground that there has been some unexpected delay in completing the scheme, can the right hon. Gentleman indicate that he will be able to make a fuller statement within a reasonable time?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, because that must depend on the course of the negotiations.

Mr. HARRIS: Before the Minister confirms the scheme, will this House have a right to discuss it?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that must depend on what the scheme is.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (CANADA).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the large proportion of emigrants to Canada of foreign birth, any steps are being taken, in conjunction with the Canadian Government, whereby an increased number of English people may be absorbed in the agricultural and industrial life of the Dominion?

Mr. AMERY: His Majesty's Government in Great Britain have this question under their consideration, and it will no doubt also be considered by the Parliamentary Committee, which, as my lion. Friend is no doubt aware, has been appointed by His Majesty's Government in Canada.

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the work of the Oversea Settlement Committee might be speeded up in the direction indicated

Mr. AMERY: I am trying to speed it up.

Lieut.-Colonel McDONNELL: Is it not the fact that the recent Regulations put into force are, contrary to the hopes of the Canadian Government, tending to slow up migration from this country to Canada?

Mr. AMERY: I would not like to speak with certainty, but have been informed that the first result of these Regulations has been to slow up migration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Prime Minister.]

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I be permitted to ask for what purpose this Motion is made, and how far the Government propose to go to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope 0 get the second Order.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 216: Noes, 87.

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
[3.41 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T
Fraser, Captain Ian
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Albery, Irving James
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Oakley, T.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Apsley, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilcher, G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Atkinson, C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Preston, William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Douglas H.
Ramsden, E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Remnant, Sir James


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hanbury, C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ropner, Major L.


Bennett, A. J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Betterton, Henry B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Brass, Captain W.
Hills, Major John Walter
Savery, S. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Briggs, J. Harold
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Briscoe, Richard George
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Brittain, sir Harry
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Skelton, A. N.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Smithers, Waldron


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Burman, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Storry-Deans, R.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Campbell, E. T.
Jephcott, A. R
Templeton, W. P.


Carver, Major W. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Tinne, J. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Clayton, G. C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Loder, J. de V.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Looker, Herbert William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Cope, Major William
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warrender, Sir Victor


Couper, J. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lumley, L. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wayland, Sir William A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
wells, S. R.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacIntyre, Ian
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dixey, A. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Womersley, W. J.


Drewe, C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Statyb'ge & Hyde)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell, w. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Ellis, R. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth



Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fermoy, Lord
Nelson, Sir Frank
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Captain Margesson.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Briant, Frank


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Baker, Walter
Charleton, H. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Barnes, A.
Cluse, W. S.




Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Day, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dennison, R.
Lansbury, George
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Dunnico, H.
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Gardner, J. P.
Livingstone, A M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lowth, T.
Strauss, E. A.


Gillett, George M.
Lunn, William
Sullivan, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Mackinder, W
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thurtle, Ernest


Griffith, F. Kingsley
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick
Tomlinson, R. P.


Grundy, T. W.
Morris, R. H.
Townend, A. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurll



Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrcse)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Paling and Mr. Whiteley.

RICHMOND PARISH CHARITY LANDS BILL,

"to confirm the Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application and management of the Charity called or known as the Richmond Parish Charity Lands in the parish of Richmond, in the county of Surrey" presented by Colonel Spender-Clay; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 103]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Miss Lawrence and Mr. Sandeman; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Kelly and Captain Loder.

Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).

Ordered, That the Committee on Group C of Private Bills, which stands adjourned until To-morrow, be further adjourned for the convenience of parties until Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.—[Sir John Ganzoni.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (EQUAL FRANCHISE) BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th April].

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Maximum scale of election expenses.)

The Fourth Schedule to the principal Act (which relates to the maximum scale of election expenses) shall have effect as if for the word "sevenpence" there were substituted the word "sixpence" and as if for the word "fivepence" there were substituted the word "fourpence."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed [18th April], "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Question again proposed.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): On the last occasion, when this Clause was before the Committee, it was arranged that I should consider the observations which had been made on both sides of the Committee and, after consultation with the Prime Minister, should announce to-day the decision at which the Government had arrived with regard to this matter. I see no harm in saying that, just as there have been differences of opinion on both sides of the Committee, so there have been differences of opinion in the Government itself. [Interruption.] This is not a question of high politics, but is a question on which members of the Government, as Members of Parliament, are quite entitled to hold any views that they like, and it is no more extraordinary that opinions should differ among them than that opinions should differ in the House itself. There are one or two figures which I think I ought to give to the Committee, and, beyond giving them, I propose to say very little more.
The increase in the amount of money available, if the rate per head remains as it is, would vary in boroughs from £150 to £250, and in the counties from £200 to £300. Those are the possible
limits within which candidates would have to find more money for their election expenses after the passing of the Bill. It is obvious that there are two principles, perhaps of a contradictory character, which have to be considered in this matter. In the first place, I think we shall all agree that it is the duty of the House of Commons to make it as easy as possible for Members to get into the House—that there ought not to be, when candidates desire to enter the House of Commons, any bar of a financial character which can possibly be avoided. That, I think, is a principle on which all Members of the House will entirely agree. Then there is a second principle, perhaps not quite on all fours with the first, and that is that the expenditure should be sufficiently large to enable a candidate to bring the issues properly before the electorate. Those are two principles which have to be recognised, and they are, perhaps, on the face of them, almost irreconcilable; but, if these two principles are considered and applied fairly, I think that hon. Members, each for himself, will he able to see where the line should be drawn as to the amount of money that candidates should be allowed to spend—such a sum as would not, on the one hand, make it difficult for a man not so well endowed with this world's goods to enter the House of Commons, but, on the other hand, sufficiently large to enable candidates to put their views, and the views of their parties, fairly, honestly and adequately before the electors of the country.
There is only one other figure which I think the Committee might perhaps like to have, and that is as to the amount of money which was spent per head at the last Election, in 1924. I have had a very careful investigation made as to the amount of money spent by the successful candidates in different categories. In the London boroughs, the successful candidates spent 4.23d. per head. In the English boroughs, where the figures of 177 candidates have been taken, the expenditure was just under 4d. per head, namely, 3.91d. In the English counties the successful candidates, who numbered 221, spent 5.29d. In the Scottish burghs, as might, perhaps, be expected, the expenditure was very much smaller, namely, exactly 2½d. per
head, while the successful candidates in the Scottish counties spent 4.87d. per head. I am not attempting to draw any deduction from these figures, but simply place them before the Committee because I thought that the Committee ought to have all the information that it was in my power to get. I simply place these figures before hon. Members, and each can interpret them for himself. There is one other thing that I ought to say on behalf of the Government. This Clause is rather a leap in the dark, and we cannot say what expense may be actually needed by candidates before the next Election takes place. I merely mention that for what it is worth.
Finally, I have to say that the Government themselves desire to leave this matter entirely to the decision of hon. Members. In our view, this is a matter which does not affect party politics; it does not affect parties on one side or the other, but is a matter with which Members should be allowed to deal themselves, seeing that it is a matter of the I expenditure of their own money. The Question that is now before the Committee is, "That the Clause be read a Second time." All Members who desire a reduction to be made in the amount that may be spent will, of course, vote for the Second Reading of the Clause, while all Members who desire that no reduction should be made in the amount of money allowed to be spent per head will vote against the Second Reading of the Clause. If the Second Reading of the Clause is carried, an Amendment will. I think, be moved by some of my hon. Friends to omit the boroughs from the reduction of expenditure, and again there will be, as far as the Government are concerned, a perfectly free and open vote in regard to that particular Amendment.
I ought, perhaps, to add that in regard to another Amendment, which suggests reductions below the amounts suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), that is to say, to 5d. in the counties and as little as 3d. in the boroughs, the Government are convinced that that

would be inadequate, and, therefore, I do not suggest that that should be left to the free vote of the Committee. We have had to consider the question, and we have determined, for ourselves, that that would be too small really to enable the facts to be put adequately before the electorate. I hope that it may not be considered necessary to move that Amendment. I suggest to the Committee, therefore, that a Division should be taken immediately on the Second Reading of this Clause, and that then the Amendment. to omit the boroughs should be moved; and, as I have said, on both of these questions, namely, the Second Reading of the Clause and the cost in the boroughs, the Cabinet propose to take no part in the Divisions, and to leave the matter entirely to a free vote of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: I see that the first Amendment on the Paper is one which proposes a reduction in the rate in the counties, and the Amendment to omit the boroughs item would come after that.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I looked round for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), but did not see him here. I was going to appeal to him not to move his Amendment proposing a further reduction in the counties, because the Government could not accept that, as it would reduce the amount below what they think might fairly be left to the opinion of the Committee.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I ask if, on the new Clause which stands in the name of certain hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, and which also proposes further reductions in the two rates, the Government will allow a free vote?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that Clause is not covered by the Instruction.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 71.

Division No. 86.
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Alexander, A. V (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ammon, Charles George
Atholl, Duchess of


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Atkinson, C.


Albery, Irving James
Apsley, Lord
Attlee, Clement Richard


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Baker, Walter
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Naylor, T. E.


Balniel, Lord
Groves, T.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry


Barnes, A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Narmanton)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pilcher, G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hammersley, S. S.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hanbury, C.
Potts, John S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hardie, George D.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Blundell, F. N.
Harris, Percy A.
Remnant, Sir James


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ropner, Major L.


Bourne, Captain Robert Crott
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Briant, Frank
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Briggs, J. Harold
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Briscoe, Richard George
Hills, Major John Waller
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N th'l'd., Hexham)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hore-Belisha, Lestle
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buckingham, Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jephcott, A. R.
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, E. A.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cope, Major William
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Templeton, W. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lawrence, Susan
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Tinne, J. A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dunnico, H.
Lumley, L. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lunn, William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-OR-Hult)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ellis, R. G.
Macintyre, I.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
Macmillan Captain H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Foster, Sir Harry s.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gardner, J. P.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Wilson. Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, Major P. B.
Windsor, Walter


Gates, Percy
March, S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Margesson, Capt. D.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Gillett, George M.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wright, W.


Grace, John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morris, R. H.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Couper, J. B.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bennett, A. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Goff, Sir Park


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brittain, Sir Harry
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hacking, Douglas H.


Campbell, E. T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Carver, Major W. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hamilton, Sir George


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dixey, A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Clarry, Reginald George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hartington, Marquess of


Clayton, G. C.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Haslam, Henry C.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Fermoy, Lord
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)




Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smithers, Waldron


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Preston, William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Long, Major Eric
Price, Major C. W. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Raine, Sir Walter
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Savery, S. S.



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Oakley, T.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir George Dairymple


Pennefather, Sir John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
White and Sir Joseph Nail.

Clause read a Second time.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 3, to leave out the word "sixpence," and to insert instead thereof the word "fivepence."
The Division which has just taken place shows that it is the strong opinion of the Committee that there should be some effort made to reduce the amount which would otherwise be authorised to be spent in elections now that the electorate is enlarged, but if Members of the Committee will take pencil and paper they will see that, in the light of the figures just given by the Home Secretary, there is good ground for thinking that the figure of 6d. in counties is still an unnecessarily large figure. The Home Secretary told us that in English counties the amount which the successful candidate spent was 5.29d. and in Scottish counties 4.87d., and, consequently, at present success in a county election does not depend on spending 7d. or anything like it. We are going to add by this Bill something like 9,000 new electors to a constituency, so that a constituency, instead of consisting of 36,000 voters, will, on an average, consist of 45,000. If hon. Members will do a very simple piece of arithmetic, they will see what follows from that. If you multiply the 36,000 voters by 7 you will get a total in pennies of 252,000. If, on the other hand, you take the new position, with 45,000 voters in the average constituency, and multiply that number by 6, you get 270,000 pennies, which is an excess of 18,000 pennies, or £75.
If it were the case that people spent, and had to spend, up to the maximum at present allowed, there would be a fair argument for allowing £75 more to be spent, but, in fact, as we have been told by the Home Secretary, that is not the case, and, on the figures given to the
Committee, there is no ground whatever for supposing that if the amount authorised for this larger number of electors were not 6d., but 5d., you would not provide abundantly for the case illustrated by the Home Secretary. I do not forget that averages necessarily consist of combining together cases which are rather above the line and other cases which are rather below, but, at the same time, the figure I suggest gives a good deal of latitude. A fact which the Home Secretary did not mention, but which is also to be established by examination of the statistics, is that the amount spent at General Election after General Election by candidates is decreasing. If the figures are analysed, whether in counties or in boroughs, it will be found that the amount spent per candidate for a contested seat in 1922 was greater than in 1923, and in 1923 was greater than in 1924. The expenditure is tending to go down, and I would point out, finally, that there really is no ground for saying that the addition of 9,000 of the younger women to the electorate justifies a substantial increase of expenditure.
The essential expenditure remains, for the most part, exactly the same. Expenses under such heads as election agent, sub-agents, personation agents, committee rooms, public meetings, bill-posting or advertising, remain, or ought to remain, substantially the same. The only difference will be that the new electors, who, hitherto, have been at the meetings or looked at the hoardings, but have not been able to vote, will be able in the future not only to attend the meetings and look at the hoardings, hut also vote. The only point on which it can fairly be said that an increase of expenditure may be expected will be in the matter of stationery, printing and posting. As regards stationery, once you have had set up in type the election
documents and printed 36,000 of them, everyone knows that to print another 9,000 copies is a very small matter indeed. As regards postage, 9,000 halfpennies only come to £18, and, therefore, unless we do something quite substantial to reduce the maximum figure, we are, while claiming to reduce unnecessary expenditure, really encouraging a higher rate of expenditure in practice than has been found sufficient in the past. I submit that any reasonable analysis of the figures would give very strong support to the view that the figure of 6d. in the Clause, which has just been read a Second time, is really unnecessarily large, and that the figure of 5d. should be substituted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am rather surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved this Amendment. The Committee has passed the Second Reading of the Clause by a very large majority, composed of all sections. The Clause was moved officially from the front Opposition Bench, and, therefore, I assume we may take it from the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause, and who has had the experience of being Home Secretary in the last Government, that he is satisfied that 6d. is a fair sum to put in the Clause. That sum has been accepted this afternoon by a great majority of the Committee, including a very large number of the Conservative party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has come here with his reforming zeal, and wants to be even more reforming than the reforming Government to which I have the honour to belong. He tried to analyse the figures, but, quite obviously, the figures I gave were average figures and not maximum figures. The election expenses of a very large number of Members of the party on the opposite side of the Committee are, quite frankly, known to be considerably less than those on our side, yet the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) is so fair—I thank him for it—in regard to this Clause, that he knowing from past experience that his own colleagues would not want probably to spend up to anything like 6d, per vote, realising that on our side things are somewhat different, put down what he considered to be a fair figure.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to put in a figure which, I am prepared to say, would not be fair to a large number of Members who have sat for many years and who realise what the cost of elections is. On behalf of the Government, I certainly hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment. He made great play of the fact that election expenses are declining. That is true, but the reason is obvious. When a Member has had three elections in three years he goes to his agent and tells him to be very careful indeed. On all hands, there was less money spent in 1924 than in the previous two elections, but, owing to the stability and the excellence of this Government, that experience has not been repeated, and I think by next year, when we shall have been in power five years, hon. Members will perhaps find their purses sufficiently repleted.
There is one other thing I would point out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made great play of the fact that you cannot get more meetings and you cannot get more personation and so forth. In these large constituencies, you cannot get the electors into the meetings. The halls are not big enough. In many constituencies you cannot get more than about 25 or 30 per cent. of the electors to the meetings at all. [Interruption].It is a little awkward if an election takes place in a foggy November. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that the month when the next election will take place?] Elections take place at the most convenient period of the year, whatever that may be, and we have to guard against all possibilities. We have to guard against the possibility of a very cold, foggy, wet period when you cannot hold as many open air meetings as you can in the summer months. There must necessarily be an increase in pamphlets with this new large electorate. You have 5,500,000 more people who have never had votes before, have never had election literature, and never had the privilege of hearing the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman or others in their lives. Now they are coming as fresh voters, and it would be wrong to reduce the limit I have already agreed upon. We have tried to deal fairly with the matter and to leave it fairly and squarely to the opinion of the House, but, as I said a few minutes ago, we are not prepared to leave to the Com-
mittee a figure which is believed to be wrong. We believe the figure to be wrong and unfair, and one which would seriously militate against a considerable number of Members putting their case fairly, strongly and as fully as they might wish to do before the new electorate. That being so, I hope the Committee will refuse the Amendment, and allow the Clause to pass as originally proposed.

Sir BASIL PETO: On a point of Order. If the Amendment he rejected, shall I be in order in moving the manuscript Amendment I have handed in to substitute 6½ for 6d.?

The CHAIRMAN: No, because sixpence will then have been ordered to stand part. The hon. Baronet will have an opportunity to put his case on this Amendment.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Although it is true that the Second Reading of the Clause standing officially in the name of this party has been carried, I suppose we are at liberty, when new light is thrown upon the subject and new evidence is produced, to change our minds. The Home Secretary said there were two points that had to be considered in coming to a decision on this question. One was that the figure should not be so low as to prevent a candidate putting his views properly and fully before the electors, and the second was not to penalise men who could not afford a lavish expenditure upon their candidature. I believe the experience of the Labour party has proved that it is possible for a candidate to put his views before a constituency without the expenditure of the maximum amount allowed by law. It would have been interesting if the right hon. Gentleman, when he had his officials at work, had extracted the average figure of election expenses of successful Labour candidates. I think the result would have shown that we have not on the average spent anything approaching 50 per cent. of the maximum allowance. I know that there are some of my hon. Friends behind me whose election expenses have not exceeded about £200. I have fought nine contested elections, and I have never spent half the maximum sum, and I have never felt hampered in the slightest degree. I have never felt that through lack of money I was prevented from putting my views adequately before the constituency.
We are not tied to any particular figure. We do not want to hamper candidates in putting their views before their constituencies, and we do not want to place poor candidates at a disadvantage. On the other hand, we do not want to put a premium upon lavish expenditure, which is very often unnecessary. I think most hon. Members will agree that a great deal of the expense of printing particularly is wasted, and no return is given in the shape of additional votes. The figures given by the Home Secretary in regard to the average expenditure has caused us somewhat to modify our views, and we are now of opinion that the figures proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) would not prevent any candidate from doing what the Home Secretary says should be the object we have in view in fixing the maximum allowance, namely, putting his views fully before the electorate, and therefore we are going to vote for the Amendment.

Major DAVIES: We were not altogether unprepared for the Machiavellian finish of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley seemed to give us an example of how perfectly accurate figures and statistics can be twisted to prove results which really have no bearing on the real facts of the situation. I am one of the unrepentant band of 72 wise virgins who recently went into the No Lobby with a view to keeping the figures as they were. We were defeated, and a reduction has been decided upon. I want to bring forward reasons why this further reduction should not be contemplated. No one can charge me with being an advocate of high election expenses. I am unfortunate in probably standing alone in having fought three elections in the space of 12 months, and my banking account is still staggering under that triple blow. Undoubtedly at the first by-election the expense was heavy, but being less green in the later elections, and having more control over my agents, I was able to get through them on sums very substantially less than the maximum I was entitled to use.
The question in my mind is not whether we shall have to issue so much more literature or have so many more meetings, and engage so many halls. It is a question of the conditions in the elections that are to be fought. For
example, there may be cases, such as Marylebone, where to all intents and purposes there have been uncontested elections. Now the matter becomes a particularly contested one, although we all know the result is a foregone eon-elusion. Nevertheless it means that there is additional expense on the candidates there, because of those special conditions. A constituency may have been rather quiet, having recognised the inevitable for some time, and then, for some reason, intense electoral interest is aroused by some special feature and the result is that the candidate is compelled in spite of himself to entertain a larger expenditure than he would otherwise have done. I do not see why in my West Country division of Yeovil, where the conditions have hitherto been from a financial point of view comparatively satisfactory, although there were those three elections in one year, I should have to tie myself in view of conditions in the future which I may not know about, or tie my friends and colleagues, of whatever party, in different parts of the country, who may be facing special conditions of which I know nothing and hope not to know anything.
I do not think it can be too often emphasised that it is not a question of whether a candidate is now going to have to pay so much. This is a maximum and not a minimum allowance. We are all at one that it is eminently undesirable that any party should have for one of its advantages the fact that it has money behind the people who represent it in the House. We believe the best minds and brains should be available for party politics, and membership of this House should not be debarred by financial considerations. The considerations that keep people from standing as Members of Parliament are not whether, having faced an expenditure of £1,200 in an election, that should be increased to £1,350 or £1,400. That additional amount is practically not worth regarding. The real thing is the constant expense of a Member of the House in his regular work, the calls upon him for political and social subscriptions, and above all, the fact that so many young men are compelled, at those years at which it might be very desirable for them to be in the House, to think of their daily bread. Politics is becoming
more and more a whole-time job, making a tremendous demand on the time of Members, and the man whom we might wish to see here has not the financial resources to enable him to become a Member, not because he is going to spend an additional £150 or £200 at an election, but because he has to give up his time which otherwise would he occupied in earning his living. Therefore, I consider it would be eminently shortsighted on the part of the Committee if we went any further. We have lately decided on this reduction from 6d. to 4d. and I hope very much, therefore, that the Committee will repudiate the suggested further reduction of maximum expenditure for the reasons I have endeavoured to show.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I should like to support the Amendment to the proposed Clause which has been moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). There are certain kinds of figures which are not of very great help in considering this question, and the Home Secretary gave us some of those figures. Average figures are not helpful in this matter at all. As an illustration of that, I should like to draw attention to the case of a certain disease. It was stated that the average age at which people (lied from that disease was about 50. On medical research being made into the matter, it was found that only two people had died from it; one was aged 90 and the other was a new-horn infant. Exactly the same error is being made by the Home Secretary when he compares the average amount spent on county elections by members of the party opposite with the average amount spent by members of the party on this side.
I have taken the trouble to jot down a few figures, which, I believe, are relevant to this issue. Since the present amounts were fixed in 1918, there have been considerable falls in the cost of various services, such as printing and stationery and even postage, in the conduct of elections. I admit that there has been a concurrent rise in wages, but, on going into the matter—and I have made my inquiries from many printers and also from a political department—and I find that in the case of paper, which is a very important item in conducting an election, there has been a fall since 1918
of 1s. 1d. per lb. For example, in 1918 cheap paper, which is by far the major item with regard to the greater part of political reprints and so on, was 1s. 6d. a lb. In 1928, it had gone down to 41d. I should like to give the case of envelopes. At every election every candidate must use at least one envelope for each elector. Some candidates use as many as two and three envelopes for each elector. That is to say, they send out three postal communications. In 1918, envelopes cost 29s. per thousand. In 1928, they cost 9s. 3d. per thousand, so that on that one item alone there is £35 saved in the case of candidates who only send out one postal communication; or £70 in the case of candidates who send out two postal communications, and as much as £100 in the case of many candidates who send out three postal communications during an election. I submit that it is a relevant figure, for there we can put our finger on one specific item stationery which saves candidates as between 1918 and 192S sums varying from £30 to £100.
I should like to say, if it is to be argued that county elections need not be subject to a decrease but that borough elections may, that there is little justification for that submission. I have been taking out a few figures with regard to the cost of county elections. Supposing there wore three elections, as there were in 1922, 1923 and 1924, and there were 35,000 electors, there would be £1,015 spent at each election by a candidate who spent the full amount. If we multiply that by three and add a certain amount, not an excessive amount, for expenditure between elections, we arrive at a figure of over £6,000. I think I can claim with definite knowledge that there must be a large number of hon. Members on the other side who represent county constituencies who spent in 1922, 1923 and 1924 at least £6,000 on their elections and on nursing their constituencies. I believe that in many cases the expenses have been even higher, and I do not think it is a good thing.
We hear hon. Gentlemen suggesting that we must educate the electors. If I may say it quite inoffensively, it appears to me that the people who spend the most money on their elections are the people from whom we get the least political arguments. Most of the political
arguments of the very wealthiest Members—though there may be exceptions to this rule—come out of their purses. It is an entirely bad thing, not only for hon. Members opposite but for hon. Members on this side too, because when they find their opponents spending these large sums of money in angling for votes, they are bound to retaliate with some other inducement. The result is, if I may give an angling simile, that they east gaudier flies upon the water. That makes hon. Members opposite spend more and hon. Members on this side promise more. [Interruption.] I was going on to say that that process is altogether to the national disadvantage, because the people who suffer from it are the Liberal party, who depend upon political principles. The hon. Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson), for whom I have the greatest envy in that he represents a constituency not 100 miles from mine and has a much easier task there, stated that whereas hon. Members of the Conservative party had to spend the money themselves, Labour Members had outside organisations to help them, the theory being that hon. Members on his side do not have outside organisations to help them. I submit that that is not; quite accurate, because it is well known that the public-houses and, to a lesser extent—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

The CHAIRMAN: That is hardly an argument to address on a difference between sixpence and fivepence.

An HON. MEMBER: The price of beer.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I was really only replying to an argument put forward previously from the other side.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that there is a difference between a discussion on the Second Reading of the Clause and the Amendment to-day.

Captain GARRO-JONES: There is a point beyond which a Government on the left in the future will not permit hon. Members on the other side to hold the advantage they possess of spending more on their constituencies. It is not only a question which arises at elections but a question of expense between elections, and it may well be that since, as at the present time, there is no definite date
at which an election begins, unless hon. Members on the other side show a spirit of conciliation in respect of this Amendment, the time will come when we shall want to impose stricter limits as to the date at which an election begins. This morning I was looking through an account of some of the leading cases which deal with the amounts spent on these elections and the date at which an election begins, and I came across a ruling by Pollock which, I think, illustrates my point, and if hon. Members will permit me I will read it. It is short. It deals with a case of corrupt expenditure. It says:
We find that the election commenced at a period many weeks, at any rate, before the election itself. We find that fact, because a person who was an absolute stranger to the district, who lived at a distance but who had considerable command of money, commenced his connection with the district by sending for an agent"—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this can be in order on this Amendment, which is an Amendment proposed for a reduction of in county constituencies only. The hon. and gallant Member must confine himself to that. It is not a question either of a Second Reading of the Clause or of the Clause standing part of the Bill.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I respectfully submit that since in this case we are discussing the amount presumably to be spent at county elections, is it not in order on that subject for me to argue that there ought to be a specific date fixed as to when the election begins; otherwise, we are not in a position to say when it has commenced?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant, Member cannot possibly propose that in connection with this Bill.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I do not seek to evade your ruling in any way. I had hoped that it would be in order. I had one or two things I wished to say about it. I should like to conclude by urging hon. Members on the other side to attempt to meet this Amendment in a spirit of conciliation. This question of expenses, whether it is for a county or for a borough, has the seeds of the bitterest party quarrel in it, and, unless hon. Members on the other side meet it in a spirit of conciliation, they will find at some future date that we shall desire to take up the whole matter and impose
far stricter limits. On the other hand, if they are prepared to accept this Amendment, it may well be that in years to come we shall be content to leave matters as they stand.

Sir B. PETO: I regret that it will not be in order for me to move a further Amendment, namely, that a reduction of a halfpenny only be made. I take it that it is a foregone conclusion that all but the limited number of Members who voted for leaving things as they are will support the Clause as moved originally by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) on behalf of the Labour party and not the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I want to say a word with regard to the arguments addressed to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). He was making an endeavour to find reasons for a change of opinion suddenly developed on behalf of the Labour party and on a part of the Clause which deals exclusively with county elections. The arguments brought forward were based upon the fact that the average expenditure of the Labour party was so much lower than that of their opponents. The appearances of Labour party candidates in rural county constituencies have not been very numerous and they have been singularly unsuccessful. Therefore, any arguments based upon how much it cost them to run an election in the countryside have really no relevance whatever in this discussion. If he could have shown us that a large section of the Members of the party on the benches opposite had won their seats in county constituencies and won them on vastly less than the maximum amount allowed at present, certainly it would have been a relevant argument.
If we accept the assumption of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley that the expenditure set by the Speaker's Conference in 1917, and adopted by the House, namely, the present maximum of 7d. and 5d., has proved to be more than is necessary or, at any rate, fully adequate, then I think his argument goes this far, that there are some items of election expenditure which will not be increased or will be very little increased on account of the additions to the electorate. In my view,
that would be met by a reduction of the figure by one halfpenny and not by one penny. I am convinced that there are a great number of other expenses which will necessarily be very much heavier than they have been in the past, on account of the larger electorate. We shall have a majority of women electors. With the electorate of women which we have had for the last ten years we have seen growing up more and more into a gradually developing and specialised organisation everywhere, a woman's side of politics. Meetings of women have had to be held and women's subjects have had to be brought before special meetings, and so on. In addition, there is the argument, which the Home Secretary properly addressed to the Committee, that there will be more and more duplication of meetings in order to find room so that this largely increased body of electors may hear the arguments of the candidates. More than ever it will be found necessary to hold meetings specially for women when they are in a majority of the electorate.
There is one item of expenditure which I should like to see cut out entirely. It was considered in the Speaker's Conference and a suggestion was made that it should be made illegal to plaster constituencies with the rival posters of the candidates. I think that is a great waste of money. On one hoarding you will see a huge poster with the words: "Vote for A," and on the other side of the street you will see an exactly similar poster: "Vote for B." I do not think that is an appeal to the electorate that ought to be allowed in election expenses. I do not know whether it would be in order for me to move that it be made a corrupt practice to issue posters of that sort. I am convinced that one halfpenny is the utmost reduction permissible if in widespread country constituencies the candidates are to place their views before the electorate. I support the Clause. as it now stands, seeing that I shall not be in order in moving an Amendment to make the figure 60. instead of 6d. I hope the Committee will pass the Clause as it stands by as large a majority as possible.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am glad that the Labour party have indicated that they will support the Amendment to the new Clause, because it is in the right direction. I agree with the hen. Member
for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) that posters of the kind which he has described are not really essential. The necessary thing in a Parliamentary election is to give the electors a specific argumentative statement in favour of the respective candidates. The whole trend of political movement in the large political parties is to give an incentive to those who have control of the very well-provided war chests to flood the constituencies with literature and posters, whereas those who work oh more moderate lines are often handicapped. Reference has been made to the amount expended in certain Scottish constituencies. My own expenses did not come up to anything like the average which was mentioned. I maintain that we can do perfectly good electioneering business in the way of legitimate appeals to the electors on a much mode moderate basis than that which has prevailed up to the present time. One great disadvantage which some of us experience is that we have not the Press on our side. The candidate who has the Press on his side has facilities which help him very materially in making his appeal to the electorate. I should have been glad to support an Amendment which would have gone more deeply in restricting expenditure both in counties and boroughs.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I rise to express a view contrary, I am afraid, to the views of hon. Members on this side of the House. I support the reduction from 6d. to 5d. because I understand that my own Amendment, to reduce the amount to 4d. in a county constituency and to 3d. in a borough constituency, will not be in order. If the figure of 6d. is to he adopted for county constituencies, the amount which the candidate will have to spend will be approximately the same that he has had to spend at previous elections. I regard the amount which a candidate has had to spend at previous elections as limiting to a serious extent the field from which suitable candidates can be drawn. There is an opinion held that the expenses of a Member in Parliament so far outweigh his election expenditure that the latter need not to be taken into account. I do not think that argument can hold. It is true that when a rich man is the Member of Parliament for a county constituency, the constituency expects much from him, but when a poor man is the Parliamentary representative for a county constituency, then, as in my own experience, the county
does not expect so much from him as from a rich man, and he does not reduce his influence thereby. If a county constituency finds a poor man spending too much money that poor man will lose just about the same number of votes as would the rich man who spends too little money; so great is the commonsense of county constituencies. Therefore, the amount which a Member of Parliament has to expend when he is a Member need not be considered when we are discussing what should he spent by a candidate during his election campaign.
There can be no doubt that the present amount required from a candidate standing for a county constituency is an effective bar to many suitable men standing for Parliament. That operates against my own party, but it is not simply on that account that I am in favour of a reduction. I look at the question from a wider standpoint and as a question of national importance. There must be a tendency for those who have brains but not much money to be attracted to a party which has unlimited funds and whose principles do not essentially differ from those of a party which has not unlimited funds. Consequently, there may be the danger in an extreme case of finding in the Liberal party young men with Unionist principles, but without private means, who are prepared to sacrifice their principles to considerations of pocket, if the divergence of principle between the Liberal and Conservative parties on certain matters become slight, as may well be. There is a risk that we may find in the Liberal party those who have more brains than money, and in the Conservative party those who have more money than brains. With regard to the Socialist party, I suppose the obvious corollary will be that those who are in the Socialist party may not have much money or brains.
Anything that we can do to reduce the expenditure, the money bar, which at the present time operates more particularly in regard to the counties, will be an advantage from the point of view of getting county constituencies represented by people who have the interests of the county at heart. In the counties there are fewer and fewer local county people with sufficient money to face the heavy expenditure involved in a Parlia-
mentary election. If we keep the amount at the present figure we shall find more and more that the counties will be represented by people who do not live in the county, whose interests are not in the county, and who come from distant parts to stand as candidates in the interests of a particular party. If we are told that the experience of past elections shows that the amount of money which is allowed to be spent cannot be reduced below the present amount, then I agree with the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) that it will be found possible to reduce the cost by abolishing posters of the kind to which he referred. That would bring the figure much lower than the present sanctioned amount. I do not think it would be necessary to legislate for that reform. The common sense of the candidates will show them how to reduce the expenditure which has been forced upon them by custom. They will reduce that part which is unnecessary.
There is one further aspect of the question which calls for attention. Last Session we passed into law the Trade Disputes Act, of which I was a supporter and am a convinced believer. That Act of Parliament has undoubtedly deprived the Socialist party of certain means by which they financed their political activities. I have always regretted that aspect, because I do riot think that any party should seek to get political advantage by crippling the financial resources of any party opposed to it. It may be true that if we reduce the amount allowed to be spent by a candidate it will not make any difference to the amount spent by most Socialist candidates; still I think that, having passed an Act limiting the resources of an opposing party, we should at the same time reduce the amount which they may be required to spend from those resources.
I would like to see the figure very much lower. I would like to see it reduced to such an extent that voluntary work would become the order of the day instead of the exception, as at the present time. When first I contested a constituency I had an offer voluntarily to do a good deal of the work which had been done hitherto by paid officials—work of the same kind which is done in the Socialist party by voluntary effort. I was, however, met
with the argument that as the work had always hitherto been paid for, voluntary work was undesirable. I believe that if we cut down the expenditure very considerably we should find enthusiasts in the Unionist party and the Liberal party who would gladly undertake voluntary work. Voluntary work has this advantage over paid work that the voluntary worker certainly brings a great deal of enthusiasm to his work whereas the paid worker may not. It would be even better if we could go still further and say that a candidate should not be called upon to spend one penny for election expenses and that his constituency should find the whole of the money required for the election. One great advantage of that would be that those who contributed financially as well as contributing their work voluntarily would bring more enthusiasm into the work on behalf of the party to which they belong. Every penny contributed would bring with it a certain amount of enthusiasm into the work, which might otherwise be lacking. I regret very much that the Amendment does not go further, and I regret that I shall have to part company with hon. Members on my side of the House; but I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon).

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: On a point of Order. I have gathered from the two previous speakers that they are under the impression that in connection with this Amendment it will not be possible to move any scale other than 5d. Surely that is not so. The question will be put that "sixpence" stand part, and if we answer that question in the negative, I presume that it will be possible to move that 6½d. or 4d. or any other sum be substituted.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that an Amendment to substitute 6½d. would be in order, but 5d. or 4d. would be in order.

5.0 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: I should like to congratulate the last speaker on the general tone of his speech. The general trend of the Debate this afternoon shows that there is undoubtedly a feeling that the scales should not be weighted against the poorer candidate, and I want to ask
hon. Members to consider to what extent the scales are at present weighted against the poorer candidates of the Labour party, especially in the county constituencies, so that those who really believe in the expressions to which they have given utterance will unhesitatingly vote for the Amendment. Take a recent example of a by-election in a county constituency which was won by a member of the Liberal party; the St. Ives by-election. In that election the roads were thick with the motor cars of the Liberal and Unionist candidates—it is an enormous area—but against the hundreds of cars which were at the disposal of the Conservative and Liberal candidates the Labour candidate had one battered two-seater. It was stated in the Liberal Press that the Labour candidate, during the greater part of that election, had the services of one two-seater motor car only. One is able to realise the appalling handicap of any Labour candidate in these county constituencies, with their enormous areas. The Conservative and Liberal candidates can secure all this help without adding one penny to their election expenses.
In the average county constituency the Conservative candidate has many friends who own motor cars, which can be put into the field without any cost whatever to the candidate. The Labour candidate can count the number of cars at his disposal on the fingers on one hand and, therefore, if hon. Members opposite believe that the scales should not be weighted against the poorer candidate then they should support the Amendment. But there are other ways in which the scales are weighted in favour of the Conservative candidates and against others. In the county constituencies they have the influence of the landlords in their favour. Those who have worked in county elections know the appalling amount of pressure which is brought to bear on the farm labourer by the friends of the party opposite. He is generally in a tied house, and is told that unless he votes for the Conservative candidate he will not be able to live in his cottage.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now taking a line similar to that of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones), which is out of order.

Miss WILKINSON: In considering this question we have to realise certain advantages which the party opposite possess, which do not necessarily come into the election expenses, and, therefore, having these advantages I am urging that they should agree to a lesser expenditure on the actual election.

The CHAIRMAN: That is rather a wide field. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) did not refer to the pressure which might be exercised by licensed victuallers.

Miss WILKINSON: I do not wish to argue your ruling, but I think it is important that hon. Members opposite should realise the enormous advantages they have in county constituencies, which do not come into Election expenses at all. In addition to those to which I have already referred, they have the Press. There are soma constituencies where not more than half-a-dozen copies of a Labour paper are sold, and therefore, as they have motor cars, the landlord's influence, and the Press, surely they can be generous and say that as far as Election expenses are concerned they are prepared to see a lesser amount spent. The last speaker also referred co the effect of the Trade Disputes Act on the funds of the Labour party. I think he spoilt the generous tone of his speech alike by saying that the Labour party had money to which they were not entitled, but the appalling difficulties which have been placed in the way of the Labour party have undoubtedly meant that money which would have been used to run meetings in the constituencies between Elections has had to be saved for the General Election itself.
The Conservative party and the Liberal party have also this extra advantage. The Conservative candidate can write to a dozen or twenty or thirty of his friends and get a £10 note without any trouble. [Interruption.] Well, all I can say is that any hon. Member opposite has only to use the telephone and he would get as much money in a few minutes as the Labour candidate would get in a year. Surely that is the logic of the situation, or else it means that the county families are much less enthusiastic than the unfortunate farm labourer. The Labour party has to depend not on the £100 cheques of the
county families, but on the pennies of the farm labourers. If hon. Members opposite go into the Lobby against the Amendment it will not be in line with the speeches they have made this afternoon; that is, if they do not want the scales to be weighted against the Labour party. I was interested very much in that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) when he pointed out that the addition of large numbers of women to the register meant many extra meetings. That is undoubtedly true. A feature of modern electioneering is the large part played by women. Many meetings have to be held in the afternoon for women as they cannot attend a night meeting. The Elections which have taken place since women have had the vote, in 1918, 1923 and 1924, have been much less of a circus and more of a businesslike discussion.
My experience, both in general elections and by-elections, is that the women electors are impatient with the showy side; their meetings are very businesslike discussions. The are the most effective meetings that take place in an election; and they are not costly. They do not cost as much money as those violent appeals to prejudice put up on the hoardings by hon. Members opposite. We all remember the drawing of a Bolshevist, and the saying, "It is your money we want," which cost thousands of pounds and did not do anything like the amount of harm which the party opposite imagined it would. We are now adding a new electorate of about 5,000,000 to the register and it is important that they should not get accustomed to these circus methods. It would be to the advantage of every party.
It would be all to the advantage of the country if elections were less and less an appeal to prejudice and more and more an appeal to reason. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have the agreement of hon. Members opposite, and I feel that we can now get on a little because I want to suggest that appeals to reason are a much cheaper proposition financially than appeals to prejudice; that meetings for quiet discussions cost less than shrieking posters on hoardings. Getting people to talk sense is much cheaper, and in the long run is infinitely better political education. For all these
reasons I hope hon. Members opposite will agree to a further reduction for county constituencies. The Labour party is looking forward with great hope to the next election because we recognise the magnificent voluntary services we shall receive from the younger women who are coming on the register. We are relying on their enthusiasm. If the party opposite wants to appeal to youth, about which they speak so much, it is much better to appeal for the voluntary service of youth and not offer pay for it.

Major HILLS: I am not altogether convinced by what the Home Secretary said and perhaps it is because he and I approach this question from different standpoints. He regards a large expenditure in county areas as the normal thing. I regard this immense expenditure as a great disadvantage to the country and also a great disadvantage to the Conservative party. I have fought a good many elections, and spent a good deal of money. My experience throughout has always been the same—namely, that your expenditure tends to rise to the maximum. All the people around you seem to find excellent reasons for spending more money. The maximum is now a big one. I do not want elections to cost more. I want Parliament to be open to the man of moderate means. I know there are men of moderate means in Parliament at present on both sides of the House, but still this large expenditure does put a premium on wealth. There is a difficulty sometimes, certainly in the Conservative party, in a candidate obtaining a constituency unless he agrees to pay the whole of his election expenses—I do not know whether it is the same on the other side of the House—and it is quite clear that £100, or £150, or £200, more is a substantial amount and might deter the man of Moderate means from coming forward.
I hope it is not too late to appeal to the Home Secretary to leave this question to the free vote of the Committee. I sit on and speak for the back benches, and the back benches have quite a different interest in this matter from Cabinet Ministers, who are quite properly endowed with big salaries. I appeal to him on behalf of a large number of men who sacrifice a great deal to come into
the House, who give up chances of preferment in business and money-making, and who spend a lot of money to come here. If we were starting to reconstruct our political system, we would not have these great expenses. A man comes forward to serve his country and it is an unreasonable and improper thing to ask him to pay a large sum of money before he can enter Parliament. I hope the Government will see their way to leave the matter to the free vote of the House. My experience is that all this heavy expenditure does no good to the candidate. The expenditure is forced upon him. He is told that there is a certain amount that he can spend, and all the influences around him urge him to spend up to the limit. I do not think he gets any good out of it. A smaller expenditure would do quite as well. I plead with the Home Secretary to leave a question which concerns the rank and file of the House to the decision of the rank and file.

Mr. SANDEMAN: With considerable amusement I heard the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I think that at last he may have brought unity to the Liberal party. He has given them a three-fold option, and that is what Liberals always like. They can vote for the Amendment because they dislike the Conservatives so much, or they can vote for the Amendment because they can then point the finger of scorn at the fighting fund and say, "We are having none of that," or they can vote for the Amendment in the hope that the fighting fund will last until the Liberal party get back into power—a very poor hope indeed. I am one of the 71 who voted against any reduction at all, because I do not see why there should be any change at present. Would the Socialists give away anything that they have got? No, and I would not ask them to do so. They talk about being plundered by the passing of the Trade Disputes Act. They were getting money to which they had no right.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a great extension of the question whether sixpence or fivepence should stand part of the Clause.

Mr. SANDEMAN: I was leading up to my point. The right hon. Member for
Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) supported the Amendment. I do not think that he has anything to brag about in claiming that his expenses never come to 50 per cent. of what he is entitled to spend. It is certain that if I took up such a pernicious doctrine as the Labour party doctrine, I could, without spending anything, get in for almost any place, except a county constituency or that which I have the luck to represent. Labour Members get practically everything done for them and they have not very much to be proud of. They naturally want our spending power to be curtailed as much as possible. We have heard the Hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) make a fervent appeal for a reduction of the expenditure. How much did she spend on her first effort?

Miss WILKINSON: Very much less than the Conservative.

Mr. SANDEMAN: We have heard several Members on the Conservative side make an appeal for a further reduction. I think that a further reduction would be madness. It is absolutely essential for the well-being of the nation that at the next three General Elections at least, the Conservative party should be returned to power. Even sixpence in the county constituencies will be hardly

enough, but a good many of us will manage with that amount to keep a majority.

Sir HARRY HOPE: I wish to state the case of the large county constituencies where the population is somewhat sparse. I have the honour to represent a very large county constituency in Scotland, with an electorate of something like 24,000. We have very wide distances to travel in order to get into touch with the electorate in counties such as that, and it is essential, if we are to put our case before the people in the isolated country districts, that the sum should be not less than sixpence. Many of our Scottish counties are very sparsely populated and there are great distances to be travelled by candidates. There is, therefore, need of what might be called a flexible amount. I think the Home Secretary is wise in adhering to this figure. It is, of course, only a maximum and permissive figure. Where we have such a diversity of constituencies, it is necessary that we should retain a maximum figure which will allow the electors in those constituencies to get into touch with their candidates.

Question put, "That the word 'sixpence' stand part of the proposed Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 111.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[5.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Buchan, John
Ellis, R. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Burman, J. B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Apsley, Lord
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fielden, E. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fraser, Captain Ian


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Campbell, E. T.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Atholl, Duchess of
Carver, Major W. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Goff Sir Park


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clarry, Reginald George
Grace, John


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clayton, G. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bennett, A. J.
Cobb. Sir Cyril
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bethel, A.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hacking, Douglas H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cope, Major William
Hall. Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hammersley, S. S.


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hanbury, C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briggs, J. Harold
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hartington, Marquess of


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Haslam, Henry C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Margesson, Captain D.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Meller, R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Smithers, Waldron


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Steel. Major Samuel Strang


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiten'n)
Oakley, T.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hume, Sir G H.
Penny, Frederick George
Tinne, J. A.


Hurd, Percy A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Ward. Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hult)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Pilcher, G.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Warrender, Sir Victor


Jephcott, A. R.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Preston, William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Raine, Sir Walter
Wells, S. R.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Loder, J. de V.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Long, Major Eric
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)


Looker, Herbert William
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ropner, Major L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Luce, Maj,-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Lumley, L. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, W. J.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


MacIntyre, Ian
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


McLean. Major A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sandon, Lord



MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S.
Captain Viscount Curzon and Major


Malone, Major P. B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)
The Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hills, Major John Waller
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, A.
Hilton, Cecil
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundoe)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Suaan
Sullivan, Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Templeton, W. P


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Livingstone, A. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
MacDonald, Rt Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Tomilnson, R. P.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Townend, A. E.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
March, S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gardner. J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln.,Cent.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Paling, W.



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell. A. A.
Wiggins.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out from the word "sixpence," in line 3, to the end of the proposed Clause.
The purpose of this Amendment is to leave the maximum figure allowable for boroughs at the present rate of 5d. Since the beginning of the Committee stage of this Bill I have had the advantage both of listening to the arguments adduced and of reading in the OFFICIAL REPORT the record of the speeches already made on this question. The Home Secretary, in the course of the Debate this afternoon, laid down the principles which ought to guide the Committee in determining the issues before it concerning electoral expenses. I agree with the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, neither the Debate as far as it has gone, nor my own consideration of those principles, lead me to depart from the opinion which I have formed and which leads me to recommend this Amendment very strongly to the Committee. I have experience in connection with boroughs, and it is with borough constituencies that the Amendment deals. The Home Secretary gave us some statistics which appear to me to justify the retention of the present figure of 5d. in the case of boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that the average cost in the London area was 4.23d., and in the English boroughs it was well under 4d.
The new Clause as it stands at present, proposes that in future the figure for boroughs should be limited to 4d. Previously the figures were 7d. for counties, and 5d. for boroughs, a difference of 2d. in favour of the county divisions. That figure of 7d. for the county division has now, by the Vote of the Committee, been reduced to 6d., but I submit that it would be unreasonable to reduce the borough figure from 5d. to 4d. merely because it has been the practice in the past to maintain a difference of 2d. between counties and boroughs. The reason why candidates were originally allowed a higher rate of expenditure per elector in counties was because certain expenses were believed to be higher in the counties than in the boroughs. Transport expenses were regarded as higher, and it was also thought desirable in the counties to allow for additional sub-agents. Modern conditions of life in rural areas have tended to
reduce the expense of transport at elections, as rural omnibus services are now available. The Committee has taken into account the fact that there may be a margin, and has agreed to reduce the figure to 6d. in the case of counties, but if experience in the counties has been that the expenses are less to-day than in the past, such has not been our experience in the boroughs.
We have not the latitude which is allowed to candidates in the counties in connection with the appointment of officials. We are not allowed sub-agents, and in many ways our difficulties have been increased where the difficulties of the county candidates may have been reduced. In busy and densely populated industrial areas, great difficulty is experienced in obtaining suitable committee rooms, and the expense is increased accordingly. There is also the difficulty of obtaining halls in which to hold meetings. That also leads to additional expenditure. In my own Division the halls available for large public meetings are few in number, and are generally booked up weeks, if not months in advance. It is only by negotiation that they are obtainable, and all this adds to the cost. I should like to quote, in support of what the Home Secretary said this afternoon, a leading article which appeared in the "Times" on 26th March:
An electorate of thirty thousand cannot be joined to the debate on current issues, without expenditure on all the means of publicity; and the pursuit of its political education, at other than election times, again requires money. It is of essential public interest that this work should be thoroughly done, not only that the verdict when given, should be given on the evidence filly presented, but, that every voter should be made to feel the reality of his or her share in the commonwealth. As a constituency grows in numbers the cost, the difficulty, and the necessity of arousing and holding its interest in the raw which is to be put to it, grow in proportion.
The suggestion has been made in the course of this Debate that many of these expenses, such as printing, do not rise in proportion to the actual additional numbers and that elections do not necessarily increase in difficulty and expense because of the addition to the electorate. I submit that in the boroughs both our difficulties and our expenses increase with increased electorates. There is a need for additional meetings and for various forms of literature. We have to
resort to special methods of informing the electorate of the issues before them. I gather from the Order Paper that some of my hon. Friends who were previously in favour of a reduction in the borough figure have to some extent changed their minds. Second thoughts may be best—in any case I prefer their second thoughts in this matter—but at the same time I observe that there is a proposal to reduce the figure from 5d. to 4½d. I do not think it would be advisable to make any change at all. It may be said that the difference between 5d. and 4½d. is not very large, but in that case what becomes of the argument that the present figure is responsible for keeping out desirable and eligible candidates who cannot meet the expense. The difference between 4½d. and 5d. in an electorate of 30,000 would be about £80, and in an electorate of 40,000, plus the 25 per cent. estimated increase, the difference would be just over £100. I do not think that the argument that the present maximum is limiting the opportunities of eligible candidates is supported by those figures.
The cost of a Parliamentary career to an individual is not represented solely by the cost of contested elections. Let us consider the problem which faces anyone with Parliamentary ambitions. If he is a young man, he has to reckon with the sacrifices which the pursuit of a, Parliamentary career will involve, and the disadvantage at which it will place him, in comparison with his competitors in professional life or in business—especially in business. If he tries to serve two masters, if he tries to follow two careers, he will be at a disadvantage with his competitors who are devoting themselves to one single object. The deterrent is very much less a question of money, in the first instance, than a question of time. If a young man, who is on the threshold of a professional or business career, is going to give up a great deal of his time either to nursing a constituency or to the work of the House of Commons, should he be returned, he will certainly be handicapped as regards ordinary advancement in his profession or business. Thus, unless he has the advantage of independent means, he is already handicapped by circumstances which this proposed new Clause does not, and cannot, affect. The monetary difference involved here is too
slight to affect him, and the Clause makes no proposal to deal with the time obstacle.
Let us take the problem as it affects a man of maturer years, who has attained some modest success, either in a profession or in business, and has a competence sufficient to enable him to devote his leisure to the service of the State in some public capacity. What is going to deter such a man from following Parliamentary ambitions? I do not think it is solely the cost. In many cases it is not that at all, or that is, at any rate, a subsidiary consideration. What affect him are rather the hurly-burly of an election, because the rough and tumble of a contested election is something to which his previous life has rendered him entirely unaccustomed, the demands on his leisure if or before he is successful, and then there is a certain attribute which vas well defined in the "Times" in another leading article, from which I will read an extract, in October, 1927:
It requires considerable enthusiasm"—
That is the attribute to which I refer—
to face the prospect of being heavily fined at intervals for the privilege a standing a fortnight's hectic abuse and thereafter being the unresting servant of a numerous electorate for so long as a Parliament may last.
I think it is the trials of a contest and the sacrifice of leisure which have more of a deterrent effect on such a candidate than any question of the cost of a Parliamentary contest. It has been pointed out during this Debate that it is not money that wins Parliamentary elections. There are one or two other things that play a far greater part, and one of them is the personality of the candidate.

Mr. W. THORNE: Another is common sense.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: That has a great deal to do with it. A third important factor is the issue which is put before the electors. At the present moment, unless the candidate has a proper opportunity of informing the electorate and the electorate looks to him for guidance, the electorate will have to look elsewhere for its education and guidance. Nowadays the electorate is so large that the problem before the candidate is already difficult enough. I may remind the Committee that the electorate, if this Bill passes, will have been enlarged
five times in something less than five decades, and we now have an electorate which is literate, interested, and anxious to receive guidance and education, especially on social and economic problems, which many of them especially in our industrial boroughs feel acutely personally and with which many of them come into close personal contact.
Again, let me remind the Committee that if' we candidates cannot have an effective opportunity of putting our case before the electors—"educating the electorate" is the term I like to use—then the electorate is bound to go elsewhere for that guidance, and the whole purpose, as I understand it, in the original case, of limiting Parliamentary election expenses was in order to prevent important issues being swayed by outside bodies, in order to prevent outside bodies exercising undue influence over the electorate for purposes for which the election was not intended—I mean bodies with no direct political responsibility—and I submit that anything which tends unduly to limit the opportunities of candidates is strengthening the chance of outside interests. Undoubtedly, if we do not as candidates have a proper chance, it must lead to greater influence, not necessarily always a wise influence, being exercised by the Press. There is a danger in such cases that the electorate may be swayed by sentiment and may be stampeded by a Press campaign. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] They never have been in the past, but they might be in the future. I know my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) believes that the difficulty may be met by the use of broadcasting, loud speakers, and appliances of a like nature, and I dare say he is right, but I do not think we should be wise to dispense with those instruments for election purposes which we already know and have tried until we are quite satisfied that the newer methods will fulfil the purpose either equally well or better. As an argument for reduction of expenses, I do not think that is one which can well be applied.
It is perhaps not necessary to remind the Committee that what I am dealing with is the figure which limits the maximum, but I do not suggest that it imposes the obligation on any candidate to spend the whole of it. I do not place any great
credence on those stories—at any rate, I think they are isolated rather than general—of the inexorable agent, anxious to prove himself worth his salt, who insists upon the candidate spending up to the limit. I have certainly not encountered those enthusiastic supporters who have scrutinised the expenditure of the candidate and pounced upon every spare penny which the candidate has not spent. It has not been my experience, and I do not think it need be the experience of anybody, but there may be times when, in the interests of the education of the electorate, something more requires to be spent than normally we find it necessary to spend. I, therefore, consider that the margin should not be destroyed. The Prime Minister reminded us the other day that democracy is on its trial. It certainly is necessary in our urban and busy industrial districts that we should bear that in mind, because there is the battleground on which the social and economic problems of the day have to be fought out, and it is there in particular that we have to meet what a former Member of this House, Dr. Haden Guest, described in his recent book as "the fine irresponsibility of the propagandist." We meet him in regard to these social and economic problems, and especially do we encounter him in our urban and industrial boroughs. It is there that we have to meet him, it is there that we have to disprove him, and it is there that we may have to, and do in point of fact, defeat him.
In asking the Committee to accept this Amendment, I desire to remind them that if, again in the words of the Prime Minister, our task at the present moment is to "make democracy safe for the world," it would ill become the House of Commons and this Committee to deny to us, the candidates in boroughs or Members for boroughs, the opportunity at least of acquiring the supplies and munitions which we deem necessary for the purpose.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I wish to say only a few words in support, of the Amendment, as I gave rather fuller reasons in support of it when we had a general discussion on the Second Reading of the Clause. From the speeches which have been delivered, it has become apparent that there is a very good case indeed for leaving the borough figure as it is. I had a fairly open mind on the question of the county figure. It ap-
peared to me that most of the county Members of the Conservative party were for the reduction, and I, therefore, took no part in that Division, but I hope the county Members, as well as the borough Members, will support this Amendment, because there is a very good case for leaving the borough figure where it is at the present moment. The figure for London given by the Home Secretary when he spoke earlier in the afternoon was a very astonishing one. He stated that the amount spent at the last General Election per head on an average was 4.23d., which would mean that, if this Amendment were not accepted and the new Clause were left as it is, the London Members would have to cut down their expenditure compulsorily by 0.23d. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Yes, because 4d. is the figure, and they spend on an average 4.23d., the English boroughs being slightly below.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson) said that the best way of educating the people was to get a quiet meeting and there talk to them, and I entirely agree, but there are places, particularly boroughs, where it is quite impossible to get that quiet and put the Conservative point of view. I happened to read in the "Times" today an account of the last election meeting at Hanky, where it says that anything like reasoned argument by the Conservative candidate was absolutely impossible, because the hooligan element absolutely prevented it. In such cases it seems to me that it is more than ever necessary that the people should be got at by means of literature. The Labour party say they do not like the hooligan, but one thing is quite certain, and that is that the hooligan does like the Labour party and will always do his best to see that the Labour candidate gets in.

Mr. W. THORNE: What do you mean by hooligans??

6.0 p.m.

Captain HUDSON: People who kick up rows at meetings, always on behalf of the Labour candidate. It seems to me that this has become purely a domestic concern of the Conservative party, if one can judge by the speeches delivered. The Labour party admit that they do not want to spend money and would not spend anything like the limit allowed if the Amendment were accepted. The
Liberal party do not seem to care, or need not care, as regards their pockets, because they seem to have an inexhaustible fund with which they can deal, as I presume that it is not out of their own pockets that the sort of family circus which has been going around by-elections on the Liberal behalf is paid. Therefore, it is up to Conservative Members to decide whether or not the reduction is to take place. I worked it out that for a borough constituency of 30,000 at 5d., you are allowed to spend £625. If it were increased by means of this Bill, to 35,000, and the new Clause is inserted to make it 4d., the amount would be £584. If it went up to 37,000, there would still be a reduction, the total being £616. It is only when you get an addition of 10,000 to the 30,000 that you have a bigger figure to spend, namely, £666, as against £625 for the 30,000 constituencies. The proportion is very much greater for boroughs than for country constituencies, and I hope that all Conservative Members will vote for the present maximum, which is in the nature of a compromise. I am certain that that will be the wisest thing to do, and I hope, therefore, this Amendment will be carried.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the Committee has a legitimate grievance against the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson). By a three to one majority we passed a Clause to prevent an undue addition to the expenses; the majority of the Conservative party voted for this Clause, and then these two hon. and gallant Members come along with this Amendment. It is, incidentally, refreshing to hear them speaking against the Front Bench, and I am glad to see, at any rate, that the Robots are gaining courage. But it is most unfair to Members of this House. We had a full Debate on Thursday on this matter, the Home Secretary has given his opinion, the Cabinet have thrashed it out, and it is left to a free vote of the House, and then these two hon. and gallant Members move this Amendment. I agree with the hen. and gallant Member for East Fulham, who is my Member, when he speaks about the literate, thinking
inhabitants whom he represents in this House. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, however, appealed to party prejudice. He first of all quoted the "travelling circus" of the Liberal party—I must say that it is very efficient as a machine in by-elections; he then talks about the hooligans at election meetings, and would have the Committee believe that they only support the Labour party. That is notoriously untrue, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it. In certain constituencies the Conservative party are very glad to have the support of what are known as "plug-uglies," and when this kind of thing is returned they squeal out very loudly. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are plug uglies?"] I refer to the rather rowdy crowds who attend race meetings, and are known as gangs, and are very ready helps in times of trouble to certain Conservative Members of this House, and have helped some of them to get here. When rather rowdy people allow their feelings to get the better of them at Conservative meetings, people at once say, "The hooligans who dare to support the Labour party and who are defeating democracy and preventing free speech!"

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): I cannot associate these matters with the Amendment before the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Apparently, Captain FitzRoy, I made myself rather clearer to you than the hon. Gentleman opposite did. I was only replying to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument about so-called hooligans, but I do not propose to pursue it. It is no argument for increasing election expenses, unless the expenditure on beer for some of these people comes out of the expenses. When the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney speaks of it as being necessary to get at the people, he must be relying on some of the propaganda of the type that returned him and some of his colleagues at the last election. All the serious arguments came, of course, from the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham, my Member, as was fitting. He made a speech to which we all listened with great interest; it was given very modestly and moderately, and it was obviously carefuly prepared. I hope the Home Secretary kept his eyes
and ears open during that speech, and that he was not seduced from the position which he took up on the original Amendment. I hope that he saw the net that was set by the fowler from Fulham, and that he will not be caught. His argument was that it was necessary to spend more money to educate the electorate—these literate, intelligent people who live round him and me in Fulham. He said that meeting places are few. There are school places in Fulham to be got; our constituency is well placed for meeting halls, and I do not know that they are very expensive. I took part in the recent county council election there—

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is no meeting place in Fulham that can accommodate more than 1,000 people?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The average Member of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's party is very glad not to have to address more than 1,000 people; it is a great strain to have to address more. I wish I could always rely on meetings of more than 1,000 people. The fact of the matter is that, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman were allowed to spend a shilling per head, he would be no better off as regards meetings. He would still have his school places and the halls that are at present available, and he would get no extra help from extra expenditure. What he really means—and he practically told us so—is that he wants to be able to spend more money on what he calls educating the electorate by posters, placards, sandwich men, and wheel-boards with slogans on them. Slogans are things that do not need much thought, and appeal to the imagination or prejudice, such as, "Your food will cost you more! or "Hands off England!" or "Away with the Red Terror!" or "Do not buy stolen goods!" That sort of thing is really not educating the electors. You will remember a recent county council election in which enormous sums were spent by the Moderates in placarding London with a hideous figure, an evil-looking person, supposed to be a Labour candidate. This evil-looking person was holding up his hand pointing at the unfortunate passerby, supposed to be the voter, and say-
ing, with a mouth that badly needed the attentions of the dentist, "It is your money we want!"
That is the sort of expenditure that is making a mockery of democracy and of our electoral system. It is a very bad form of expenditure. I have spent on posters in the past much good money that I would rather not have spent, and I did it because my opponents have put up posters attacking me or my policy or my friends, and my enthusiastic supporters have come to me, and said, "You must put up posters, too," and I have agreed with them in the excitement of the moment, but I have kicked myself when the bills have come in afterwards. I want to save the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham from this unnecessary expenditure. I want to save him from another and very objectionable form of expenditure; that is the expenditure on scurrilous leaflets, which the Conservative Central Office, and, indeed, all central offices of various kinds, get out, and which are not altogether dignified and worthy of a party. I think, speaking honestly, that the Labour party is least to blame in this respect, if for no other reason than that we have not had the money to spend on them. The handbills and leaflets which are put in people's doors at election time undoubtedly cost money, and they are not necessary. This is not educating the electorate. The way the electorate can be educated is by the Press, by the election address of the candidate, and by, above all, personal contact and personal interviews, and listening to the speeches of the candidates. The extra expenditure which the hon. and gallant. Gentlemen want will not help at all in those directions. As regards the Press, Fulham is very well served—

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: My Amendment is to leave the boroughs as they are.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Home Secretary has told us that the extra amount would be from £150 to £200.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: For-more people.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Therefore, the total amount will be greater.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: It is not fair for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to represent this to be a matter of extra expense. It is the same rate for a larger number.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. and gallant Gentleman. You are asked to bear the expenditure of a greater total amount of money. If you spread the expenditure over a greater number of people, it ought to be less, obviously. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) showed us that once you have got the block made for your beautiful photograph, which you will put in your literatuse, it does not matter whether you strike off 30,000 or 40,000 copies; once you have the minimum number of posters advertising meetings—which would be the only form of posters I would allow, if I had my way—you have no extra expense. The same applies with regard to halls. You cannot build a hall especially for Elections. Therefore, if London spent an average of 4.23d. per elector for a smaller number of electors, it would be to the advantage of all boroughs throughout the country to spend only 4d. for the greater number. If you lad this maximum amount, when the people who have strategically placed committee rooms try to charge you a very high price for them, you can say, "I am sorry, but here is the legal maximum which I can spend." It is no use that person saying he will go to your rivals with the certainty that they will pay the money. Agents who think that their efficiency depends on the amount of money that can be spent will be brought up by the same wholesome check. Fourpence per elector, with the increase of electors, will provide all the legitimate means of educating the electors that can be desired, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for expenditure that is needed for purposes only of befogging, or prejudicing, or stampeding the electors. In the interests of all parties in this House I hope hon. Members who voted for the original Clause of my right hon. Friend will stand fast now and vote again for the reduced amount, because I am certain that in the long run politics will not suffer, and that their pockets and ours will certainly gain.

Major Sir RICHARD BARNETT: As one of the diminishing number of Members of this House who took part in the Debates ten years ago, I should like to say a few words on the question of Election expenses. The maxima of 7d. and 5d. came down to us from the Speakers Conference with all the authority conferred by the unanimous resolution of that Conference, and, as far as my recollection carries me, those figures were never challenged in this House at all. The only way in which any question arose on them was on two Amendments. The first of these proposed that there should be an intermediate sum of 6d. for county boroughs between the figures for the counties and the boroughs, and that was negatived. The second Amendment, which was adopted after considerable debate, allowed an expenditure of £75 in the counties and £50 in the boroughs for the Election agent's fee in addition to these maxima. The maxima have worked well in the past 10 years. I never heard any criticism of them either in London or in the country until we came to discuss the provisions of this Bill, but it is perfectly obvious that what may be a good maximum for the constituencies which were created in 1918 is not necessarily good for the constituencies which are being created under this great increase in the franchise.
It is a simple process of arithmetic to work it out—it does not even need pencil and paper. If you increase your constituency by one quarter and you reduce the figure from 5d. to 4d., you get exactly the same amount to spend during an Election as you had before. There is to be the same amount of money to be spent in a constituency with 40,000 electors as there was in a constituency with 32,000 electors, and in my submission that is not right. Unless the maximum has been wholly wrong in the past—and there was no suggestion of that sort until this Bill was introduced—if there is an increase of a quarter in the number of the electors some provision ought to be made for the candidates to reach those additional people. I cannot deal with that point now, because there is on the Paper another Amendment which suggests that after the present Amendment has been negatived, as I hope it will be, we should adopt a figure of 4½d., and I hope that will receive the approval of the Committee. I would
ask every member of our party, and especially all the London Conservative Members, to vote against this Amendment, which declares that in spite of an increase of 25 per cent. in the electorate of a constituency there ought to be no change in the maximum.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. DALRYMPLEWHITE: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan), and I do so because when I first noticed it on the Paper I took the liberty of adding my name to it, so that it should not be thought to be merely a group of London Members who had put it. down. Despite what we have just heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Sir R. Barnett), I think the great bulk of borough Members of the Conservative party do favour this Amendment, and I hope they will show it in the Division Lobby. It is only human nature that none of us wishes to spend more money than we are obliged to. As one who has fought six contested elections during a political career of 25 years, I certainly do not want to have to spend more than is necessary, and I support the Amendment because I think it is a fair one, and because I agree with those hon. Members who have said that there must be an opportunity of putting our case before the electorate and that we ought not to be hampered in doing so. The original Clause was moved by a right hon. Gentleman on the Socialist benches. I generally look with considerable suspicion on proposals emanating from the Socialist benches, and I wonder that more of my hon. Friends do not share that feeling. More especially do I look upon a proposal with suspicion when speaker after speaker gets up from the Socialist benches and, with his hand on his heart, declares that not by a very long way indeed do any of them, or practically any of them, spend anything approaching these maxima. One may ask, in that case, why they are putting forward this Clause? In my opinion, they are doing it, not in order to do themselves any good but in order to do the two other parties harm. I will not speak for the Liberal party, because I feel that they are able to "paddle their own canoe" in this matter, but I will speak for my
own party, and I repeat that it is not to do themselves good but to do harm to their opponents.
This Debate has already ranged over a wide area, and some of these points may have been touched upon before, but I would like to mention one reason why, perhaps, the original maxima was not so necessary for hon. Members belonging to the Socialist party as it may be for us. First of all, we have to spend more money on clerical work. At election time, and especially in by-elections, the Socialist party can get and do get the services of paid trade union officials working nominally—anyhow, working voluntarily—in their offices. In addition to that, unless rumour be at fault, there has been more than one case, in those districts where the Socialist party have captured the machinery of the cooperative movement, where it has been astonishing to see how many of the clerical staff of the local co-operative society can be spared from their work in order to help the Labour candidate during an election. Then as regards the expenses of meetings. The Socialist party can put in a great deal of politics at trade union lodges, though indeed they need not put in any polities at all, because all they have to do is to mention at the meetings of the lodge that "So-and-so is the Labour candidate and you have got to vote for him, and if you do not you will know the reason why." That is a very simple form of electioneering.
Further, the Socialist party are able to hold many more street-corner meetings, because the electorate to whom we appeal prefer, I think, to hear more reasoned arguments at a meeting held in a hall than to attend street-corner meetings. We have to spend more on the hire of schools and halls than hon. Gentlemen opposite. Probably, too, we have to spend more on the hire of schools than the members of the Liberal party. I will go back to distant elections in order to hurt the susceptibilities of as few Members as possible, but I would recall that in the past chapels were very largely used, even on Sundays, as a medium of political expression. I remember that in the election of 1906 it was practically unnecessary for Liberal candidates to devote attention to the Education Act because that had been
sufficiently dealt with by the minister in the pulpit on Sunday, when he invited his congregation to vote for the Liberal. The ministers did not even confine themselves to the Education Act, which might be regarded as a legitimate subject for comment by a minister in chapel, but they dealt also with the subject of Chinese slavery. That is an instance of where members of our party are put to the greater expense.
While it is quite true that most of the county Members, as far as I can gather, are quite willing to have their maximum reduced to 6d., I do hope they will help us in the boroughs to keep our maximum at the present figure. I have contested county divisions, and have contested and sat for borough constituencies, and I think it would be a good thing if there was less of a gap between the expenses allowed to the county divisions and to the boroughs. At present the borough Member has a considerable and almost an unfair advantage over the Member for a county constituency. A candidate or Member in a county constituency has more arduous work to do, not only at election time but also in between elections, than the borough Member: and if in addition he is penalised by a difference of 2d. per head in the matter of expenditure it makes a very considerable disadvantage to him. It would be a good thing more nearly to assimilate the expenditure, so as to bring the expense as well as the difficulty of contesting a county seat nearer to that of a borough seat. I hope that, despite the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras, whom I have known for a great many years, to persuade Conservative Members to reject this Amendment, that they will support us in the boroughs.

Captain FRASER: May I remind the hon. Member who has just sat down that he must couple his suspicions of the Labour party in this matter with some of his own party, or else he must withdraw his suspicions altogether, because we brought forward this question before the Labour party did, and we moved the Instruction. While dealing with this aspect of the case, I would venture to return to a point which has been made in previous Debates, which is that it is not from the point of view of hurting the Conservative party but of helping them that
we continue to press for a decrease in election expenses. It may not be understood, but it is our belief, that the wider the area from which candidates may be drawn the better it is ultimately for our party. It is upon that ground, and upon that ground only—I would like to be allowed to correct those words, and say that it is upon that ground only as far as this part of my argument is concerned, that I would ask for the indulgence of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who do not appreciate that point. I do not mean that it is upon the party ground only that we vote for a reduction of election expenses, but because we believe the House of Commons as a whole will be better served if there is the widest possible field for free persons to be brought into its service.
The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson), in advocating this Amendment, said that he desired his friends to vote for it, that is to say, to vote for 5d. in the boroughs, as that figure constituted a compromise—a most unholy compromise, if I may say so. What does it mean?—"If we in the boroughs prevent the effort which some people are making to reduce the money in the counties to 5d.—if we come with you and vote for 6d., will you come with us and vote for 5d.?" Any compromise of that sort must be quite a private one amongst a few Members. It seems to me that the only compromise we ought to try to make is the one which the Home Secretary sought when he told us very fairly what is the Government's point of view. As I understood it, he said the Government did not commit themselves to details, and thought the Whips should be off in order that the Committee might arrive at some kind of figure by general agreement. We have been told that even in the most expensive group of constituencies the figure of 4½d. had not been reached. I am not, able to say what the Home Secretary thinks upon this point, but, in my view, 4½d. is a reasonable figure. For these reasons, I hope hon. Members will vote against the Amendment.
I would like to deal with one or two arguments which have been used by the Mover of this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) said that the 4½d. pro-
posal would make very little difference to the election expenses, and would have very little bearing upon the question as to whether or not a young man, who was not particularly well endowed, would be able to stand for Parliament; and he further stated that it would only be a matter of about £75, or a little over £100. I would like to tell the hon. and gallant Member that there are many of us in this House to whom £100 does make a difference. Although the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham said that £100 is such a small sum that it would make no difference, later on he argued that it was a very big sum, and that to deprive him of that £100 might ruin his chance of educating the electors of Fulham.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The argument was the difference between 5d. and 4d. and between 4½d. and 5d. If £200 is a forcible argument in one case, then it must be a good argument in the other case. I never suggested that £100 is not a matter of importance to most people. I drew attention to the fact that the expenses applicable in London are not the main determining factor when a man is looking forward to a Parliamentary career.

Captain FRASER: I do not wish to misrepresent my hon. and gallant Friend, and I apologise if he thinks I have done so. My hon. and gallant Friend fails to appreciate that there are a great many people in the Conservative party to whom £100 does matter, and I think it would be an advantage to the party as a whole if the number of people in the Conservative party to whom £100 did matter was increased. It appears to some of us that 4½d. is a fair compromise, and, after all that has taken place, I hope hon. Members will be willing to accept that suggestion. I hope the Committee will defeat the Amendment, which would strike the boroughs out of the Clause altogether. I think the figure of 4½d. is acceptable to all sections of the Committee. If this compromise is adopted, we shall increase the present figure adequately. I know that there will be some extra expenses owing to the increased electorate, but no one can argue that the extra ½d. will not cover the extra expenses which will be involved by this Bill, because it will probably provide more than enough. I think the
proposal which the Home Secretary has invited the Committee to adopt without putting on the Whips is one which will meet the views of a great majority of the Members.
I do not desire to go over the whole of the ground covered by the Mover of the Amendment. One of his arguments was that the sum of money already available was inadequate for educating the electorate. On this point I would like to remind the Committee what has taken place in London, because London is the particular district from which this Amendment has emanated. It is admitted that London is the area which is mostly affected by a reduction of election expenses. The Home Secretary has given a very interesting figure relating to the average expenditure by winning candidates at elections in London, and he placed the figure at 4¼d. I would like to mention another figure which is more significant, because the winning candidates referred to by the Home Secretary must include some of those very safe seats in which no money was spent, and where there is very often no contest at all.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My figure related to contested elections, and did not include any uncontested elections.

Captain FRASER: I suppose that figure included the winners on both sides where there was a contest. That is a very significant figure, and being less than 4½d., it seems to suggest that 4½d. forms a fair compromise. Nevertheless, the figure given by the Home Secretary includes seats in such places as the City of London, and these are safe seats where the people do not bother about spending much money. An examination of the constituencies which are highly contested, and the expenses incurred would, I think, bring us much nearer to the sum now proposed. I think the figure of 4½d. would meet the majority of constituencies, and it is only those holding seats by a narrow margin like that of the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham who are worried about it. In London there are 15 seats held by Conservatives where the majorities in each case are less than 5,000, and the election expenses amount to 88 per cent. of the maximum. There you have a clear margin of 12 per cent., and if we accept
the figure of 4½d. there will be another 12 per cent. added, making 24 per cent. increase, which is more than adequate to meet the extra costs which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has shown cannot possibly amount to the full 25 per cent. For these reasons, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment to cut out the boroughs, and accept the figure of 4½d., which, I think, is a very reasonable compromise.

Sir R. SANDERS: I know there was a considerable difference of opinion amongst the Conservative party on this question before the discussion took place on the Amendment. As far as I can see, the great majority of the county Members wish to have a reduction in the expenses, while a great majority of the borough Members wish to leave things as they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am sure the borough Members do not wish to make it more difficult for the county Members to get what they require. If the borough Members attach great importance to retaining the figure at 5d., I, as a county Member, shall support them, and I hope other county representatives will do the same. The figure of 5d. was arrived at by a Committee. consisting of the Members of all parties, and it was adopted without opposition by a House of Commons in which the Conservatives were not in a majority. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the figure of 5d. was forced upon the House by the Conservatives, and it seems to be a figure which is quite reasonable to meet the demands of all parties. The Bill we are considering adds enormously to the electorate, and, consequently, it must add a certain amount to the election expenses. I think a good case has been made out by the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan), and I shall support the Amendment.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: It is only right that a word or two should be said why we must resist the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan). We were all very much impressed by the figures given to the Committee by the Home Secretary when we were considering the new Clause. We felt that the best Amendment would be to make the figures in the Schedule
5½d. and 4½d., but that there might be some objection to dealing with halfpennies except perhaps in Scotland, and we came down on the side of 6d. and 4d. The figures given by the Home Secretary show that all the difficulties would have been met by agreeing to 5½d. and 4½d. We, therefore, feel that we must resist this Amendment, which would mean that there would be no change, as far as the boroughs are concerned, from what is contained in the Schedule to the present Act.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his very brief remarks, took up the point rather to show that there was no need for change so far as the boroughs are concerned. I do not agree with that argument. I think that, if you add one-fourth to the number of electors in any constituency—whether that constituency has an electorate at present of 35,000, 40,000, or, as in my own constituency, 52,000, which probably, under the new Act, will be raised to something like 64,000 or 65,000—a very strong case can be made out, for, after all, the larger the number of electors that has to be dealt with, the more, proportionately, can the expenses be reduced, if there be the will to reduce them. If you are going to get so many election addresses printed, then, the higher the number, the less, pro rata, ought to be the expense of each additional 1,000 or each additional 10,000, as the case may be. It seems to me that that applies to the case which this Committee is now considering, and that to leave the boroughs just as they were when their electorates were one-fourth less in number than they will be when this Bill becomes law, would be encouraging those who can lavish money needlessly on certain forms of expenditure in the boroughs to do so, and, therefore, handicapping those who, like the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser), feel the weight of every additional £100 of

expenditure that may be forced upon the candidate.

I think that the case would be met if the Amendment now before the Committee were rejected, and the next Amendment, to which reference has been made by the hon. and gallant Member, namely, the Amendment proposing that the sum be 4½d., were carried as an agreed Amendment. After all, none of the figures that have been referred to to-day need be arbitrary. We are none of us discussing this matter from a purely partisan point of view. The Home Secretary, I think, gave me this credit, that in putting down the proposed new Clause, I at any rate was not actuated by any party intention, and I now rise to try to get the Committee to come to an agreement with regard to boroughs by accepting the Amendment which proposed that the sum be 4½d. I think that, if we do that, the whole arrangement of 6d. for the counties and 4½d. for the boroughs ought to be satisfactory to all parties in the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope that the Committee will now be prepared to come to a decision. I stand exactly as I stood in the earlier part of the clay, but the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) stands a little differently.

Mr. HENDERSON: On your figures.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On my figures I stand where I stood before, that is to say, that the Government desire to leave the matter entirely to the Committee. I think we have heard all the arguments from both sides, and I hope that the Committee are now prepared to vote on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'word' in line 4, stand part of the proposed Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 181.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[6.51 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cluse, W. S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Albery, Irving James
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Colfox, Major William Phillips


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Briant, Frank
Compton, Joseph


Ammon, Charles George
Briggs, J. Harold
Connolly, M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Broad, F. A.
Cove, W. G.


Attleé, Clement Richard
Bromley, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Baker, Walter
Buchan, John
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Buchanan, G.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Charleton, H. C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, James


Davison Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dennison, R.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, T.
Shinwell, E.


Dunnico, H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. St. John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Kirkwood, D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lansbury, George
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


England, Colonel A.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)
Lee, F.
Snell, Harry


Fairfax, Captain J, G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Loder, J. de V.
Stamford, T. W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lowth, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Gardner, J. P.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Gates, Percy
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mackinder, W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Sullivan, Joseph


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Templeton, W. P.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
March, S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thurtle, Ernest


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Groves, T,
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col- J. T. C.
Tinne, J. A.


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Townend, A. E.


Hall, F, (York, W. R., Normanton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hammersley, S. S.
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Harney, E. A.
Pethirk-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Purcell, A. A.
Wiggins, William Martin


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ramsden, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, G. H.
Rose, Frank H.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Wolmer, Viscount


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wright, W.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scymgeour, E.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B. Smith.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut. -Colonel
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hartington, Marquess of


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Clarry, Reginald George
Haslam, Henry C


Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Clayton, G. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Apsley, Lord
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cope, Major William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Couper, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Atkinson. C
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Herbert. Dennis (Hertford. Watford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Bennett, A. J.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bethel, A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, R. S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Betterton, Henry B.
Drewe, C.
Hurd, Percy A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurst, Gerald B.


Blundell, F. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Bowyer Captain G. E. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Brass, Captain W.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briscoe, Richard George
Fermoy, Lord
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fielden, E. B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Looker, Herbert William


Buckingham, Sir H
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Burman, J. B.
Galbraith. J. F. W.
Lumley, L. R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grace, John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Caine, Gordon Hall
Grant, Sir J. A.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Campbell, E. T.
Grotrian, H. Brent
MacIntyre, Ian


Carver, Major W. H.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
McLean, Major A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hamilton, Sir George
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hanbury, C.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.




Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Malone, Major P. B.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Margesson, Captain D.
Ropner, Major L.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Meller, R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Rye, F. G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Salmon, Major I.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wells, S. R.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Oakley, T.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)
Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Penny, Frederick George
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Skelton, A. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Withers, John James


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Smithers, Waldron
Womersley, W. J.


Pilcher, G.
Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Preston, William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang



Raine, Sir Walter
Storry-Deans, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Remnant, Sir James
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Colonel Vaughan-Morgan and


Rentoul, G. S.
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Captain A. Hudson.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The new Clause [Amendment of s. 33 and Schedule 4 of principal Act] standing in the name of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ellis Davies) would be out of order owing to the Instruction. The new Clause [Amendment of Schedule 4 of principal Act] standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) and another new Clause [Amendment to 8 Geo. V., c. 64] standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) will not be in order.

SCHEDULE.—(Consequential Amendments of principal Act.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut. Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I beg to move, in page 8, line 33, at the end, to add the words:
Sch. 5 … In the Form of Voting Paper in Part I and in Forms A and C in Part II the words '(In the case of a man)' and the words '(In the case of a woman) that I have not voted at this General Election for any other university constituency' shall be omitted.
This is a purely drafting Amendment. As the franchise in the case of a man and a woman is now the same, it is no longer necessary to make any difference between them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I take this opportunity of asking the Home Secretary why it is only necessary to alter this wording in the case of university voting and not in other cases? I only rose because, now we have this new law of voting, one would think that some new words would be required on the forms and some Amendment would be required to the existing law.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The first point the hon. Member raised is already covered by an Amendment which is in the existing schedule to the Act. He will find it on page 8 of the Bill. As to the second point he raised, it is not necessary to insert any words such as he suggests, because the voting papers deal with university elections only.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.)

Mr. SCURR: When the proceedings were interrupted on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to omit Clause 2 of this Bill, I was endeavouring,
in seconding that Amendment, to put before Members of the House, who do not represent constituencies in the administrative county of London the fact that, by the proposals which the Minister of Health is making in this Bill, he is adding yet another complicated on to the already complicated system of government which exists in London at the present time. There are 28 borough councils, the City Corporation, the London County Council, 25 boards of guardians, the Metropolitan Asylum Board, arid many other authorities, many of whom have overlapping duties and responsibilities, and many of whom have parallel duties. The fact that the Minister is bringing in another complication into London government is a thing that ought to be condemned. I can quite understand that Members from the provinces do not quite follow the working of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. The City of Birmingham, for instance, as it exists at present, is, for Poor Law purposes, one union. As a result of that, the Poor Law rate is levied all over the city, and, in consequence, the richer parts of the city and the poorer parts all pay the same, and there is no controversy between them. But, if the Members for Birmingham found that there was a board of guardians for each district, and that in each of the richer districts, like Edgbaston, the board of guardians levied a rate for their own purposes, while at the other end of the city the guardians also levied a rate for their purposes, then they, too, would be crying out for a Birmingham Common Poor Fund like London has. If they had it, they would be the very first persons to quarrel with the Minister of Health if he suggested that some authority in Birmingham, especially a non-representative authority, should deal with the administration of that fund as it is now proposed to do in London.
We know that the contributing boroughs have had an interview with the Minister, and put forward a proposal that the contribution per head ought to be reduced, and that there ought to be more effective control over the expenditure. On the other hand, the receiving boroughs also interviewed the Minister and put forward a proposal that the sum of 9d. ought to be increased, and indicated that they do not object to any
form of control. What was the Minister's reply? It was: "I have listened to your representations. I am of opinion that neither of you have made out your case for an increase or a decrease, and I am keeping the figures the same." But, when it comes to control, what does he say? One would have thought that, having these authorities together, he would have consulted them, and have said to them: "Let us consult together, and see what is the best form of machinery that can be devised for control." Not so the Minister. He ignores these authorities in every sense of the word. I sometimes suspect that, despite his knowledge of local government outside London, he has not got that knowledge of local government in London that he has outside. Consequently, when he has this question before him of some measure of control, he immediately asks his advisers: "Is there any central authority in London dealing in any way with the Poor Law?" They immediately reply: "There is the Metropolitan Asylum Board," and he replies: "That will do," and includes it in the Bill.
I hold in my hands a report issued by the London County Council on the 22nd February, 1928. It is the report in regard to the position of the Poor Law, particularly dealing with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. The London County Council gave this considered opinion in regard to the proposal that the Metropolitan Asylum Board should be the authority, and I read it because it is a considered opinion, and because the chairman of the special committee is an honoured Member of this House, the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan), and he was responsible for bringing the report before the London County Council and supporting it. What they say of the Metropolitan Asylum Board is:
The Metropolitan Asylum Board is a central Poor Law body consisting of 73 managers, of whom 18 are nominated by the Minister of Health, and 55 are elected for three years by the guardians of the several London Poor Law unions from within or without their boards.
I hope hon. Members will notice those last words.
It is therefore linked up with all the hoards of guardians, and may be said to represent (by indirect election) London as a whole. It is probable that the Board
could manage the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, as a purely administrative function, much in the same way as the receiver of the Fund does at present, but such a transfer alone would not materially improve the situation. The fact that one or more of the managers were members of the boards of guardians (and they would not necessarily be guardians) would not be a sufficient safeguard against unsatisfactory administration, for it may be doubted whether such members would be able to influence to any considerable extent the general policy of their boards. It would appear that, in order to secure an improvement in the direction of controlling expenditure chargeable to the Fund in respect of outdoor relief, the Board would have to supervise, or, at any rate, watch closely, the administration of such relief throughout London, and might possibly have to undertake other functions. The Board, being an institutional authority only, has no machinery for dealing with outdoor relief, and it would seem undesirable that any new organisation should be set up for the purpose, in view of the fact that both the Board and the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund would disappear if the Minister's provisional scheme for Poor Law reform in London were carried out. The alternative would be for the machinery and powers of the Ministry of Health to be utilised so far as might be necessary, and for the Board to work in close co-operation with the Ministry in the matter. It is difficult to visualise a scheme on these lines which would work satisfactorily.
This is the considered opinion of the London County Council, and that that opinion is absolutely justifiable is shown when I mention to the House the functions of the Metropolitan Asylum Board. It has really very little to do with Poor Law at all. It has to do with fever hospitals, smallpox hospitals, institutions for post-encephalitis lethargica, tuberculosis sanatoria., mental hospitals, mental deficiency hospitals, institutions for the feebleminded, institutions for sane epileptics, institutions for parturient women suffering from venereal disease, ophthalmia, neonatornm, sick children, and the training ship "Exmouth." The only Poor Law with which it deals is the casual wards. Out of a total expenditure of £2,213,000, only £35,000 was spent on the casual poor. The rest is public health services and has nothing to do with the giving of public assistance, either indoors or outdoors, and I submit that a body of that kind is absolutely unable to do this work satisfactorily.
There is a further point in regard to the constitution of the Board. So far as
the guardians are concerned, when consideration is being given to the question as to how the Members shall be elected, and a particular union is divided into wards, the idea is that the number of representatives for each ward shall be in proportion to rateable value and population, but in regard to the nomination of persons by boards of guardians to the Metropolitan Asylum Board, there seems to have been no scheme of any kind or description. I find, for example, that the rateable value of the Union of Camberwell is £1,531,000, and of Lewisham, £1,530,000, which is as nearly equal as it is possible to get. Yet Camberwell has two representatives and Lewisham one. On the other hand, Greenwich has a rateable value of £1,364,000 and Southwark about £1,400,000, and Greenwich has one, and Southwark two. Stepney, which has a valuation of £1,770,000, is allowed four. That is rather fortunate for the party with which I am identified, because we have a Labour majority, but the system is unfair from beginning to end. If we take the test of population, we have the same anomaly. Stepney, with 255,000, has four representatives, while Holborn, with 120,000, has three. If I take the principle of rateable value and population together, I find a further anomaly. In Stepney and Camberwell population and rateable value are practically equal, and Stepney has four representatives while Camberwell has two.
Then there is the unwieldy size of this Board. It means that in the end it is going to be reduced to a small Committee of the Board, and what are to be the principles? There is no quarrel, I take it, in regard to the amount per head that is charged on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. If my memory serves me aright, the figures show that the average is round about 12d. throughout London. Only one or two Boards are below, Hackney and Fulham, and one or two are above. Poplar, I think, is about 14d. and Stepney about 12½d. Therefore it is not the amount spent per head as to which there can be any quarrel. Is it then going to be a question as to the number of persons who are going to be in receipt of outdoor relief? Because after all, that is coming down to a question of policy, and we on these benches have suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that the proper way would be that if there was a contribution being
made by all the unions of London towards the relief of the able-bodied poor, they ought to come in as one body, and take the responsibility of the administration of that relief, the receiving boroughs and contributing boroughs together. It has been suggested that the right hon. Gentleman has the power under which, just as there has been a district created for Metropolitan Asylums Board purposes, there might be a district created for dealing entirely with this question of relief to the able-bodied poor of London. Then there could be no possible quarrel between any of the unions or any idea that there was a wrong policy being pursued.
But how can the Metropolitan Asylums Board decide the questions that exist in regard to the relief in London at present? It is a totally different position in regard to administration, say in Fulham and in Poplar. So far as Poplar, Stepney and Bermondsey and, to some extent, Greenwich are concerned, we suffer from that frightful curse of casual labour. In the London Docks there are employed roughly between 15,000 and 17,000 people, and yet there are nearly double that number of members in the union to which I belong seeking work every day. Some means has to be taken, so long as the casual labour problem has not been dealt with by the Port of London Authority or any other authority, under which this industry has to be subsidised, and it is subsidised for the moment by the Poor Law. Does the Minister propose to issue regulations to say that casual workers are not to receive outdoor relief f Is he going to issue regulations that single persons are not going to receive outdoor relief? It is possible by these means to reduce expenditure for the moment, but you are not in the end going to save anything at all, because later on there will be further expenditure on account of the malnutrition of these people, and the result will be greater charges on the public health services, if you drive them into the institutions as they are called—they used to be called workhouses.
There is rather a new idea now that if we only change the name we change the thing. To the people who have to go to the institutions it is as much a workhouse to-day as it was then, and if you are going to send these people into the workhouse and drive them to criminal courses—and the best of them, I really think, would become criminal if they
could not get any assistance at all—whether you send them to prison or put them into the workhouse it is going to cost a great deal more than at present. For all these reasons, I think the proposal the right hon. Gentleman has put forward is the worst that could possibly be made. It adds complication to London government, it is putting a duty upon an authority which, by its constitution, it is unable to deal with, and it will create friction between the contributing and receiving boroughs which does not exist to any appreciable extent at present, and it will make things a good deal worse than they are now. For these reasons, I beg to second the Amendment.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of page 2, line 19, stand part of the Bill."

Miss LAWRENCE: I am sure it has not escaped your notice, Sir, what a very great amount of time Parliament has spent upon Poor Law matters. We have had a litter of little Poor Law Bills. Every six months punctually we spend the time of Parliament in Prayers against the three sets of appointed guardians. We have had not one but many general Debates dealing either with the Poor Law or with matters indirectly connected with it, such as the distress in the mining areas. We have had Parliamentary time enough to have brought in and carried through a really first-class Measure,, but we have done nothing except pass a series of tiny patching up Bills one after another, and if one may draw any inference from the dates in the Bill, that process is to continue indefinitely or for such period as the life of the present Government. But it is no good regretting what might have been. It is no good expressing our wish for some comprehensive Measure of Poor Law reform which would prevent the time of Parliament being niggled away in one little expedient after another. We have to deal with this little Bill before us. I do not deny at all that there are redeeming elements in it. From one paint of view, I regard it with considerable pleasure. Probably it is an illegitimate view, but at this time in the life of a Parliament, one's mind turns irresistibly from the merits of the Bill to the effect it is going to have upon the electors.
This is a little Clause to give everything to the Metropolitan Asylum Board, and the Clause is almost the whole Bill. Though it concerns quite a limited circle, just the London Poor Law guardians, the fact is that every body it touches violently and utterly objects to it. We have repeatedly heard what the Association of Boards of Guardians say with regard to it. The majority of those guardians were present at the meeting, and we know of a good many others who are of like sentiment, and those who were present, representing the majority of the London unions, including Westminster and the City, who contributed over 80 per cent. to the Common Poor Fund, passed a resolution saying that they object to the Bill. The City of London Union, with that spirit of enterprise and self-determination which always characterises the City, has circulated Members of Parliament independently explaining that they do not care for the provisions of the Bill. It is very remarkable that there is something like absolute unanimity as to the purpose for which this Bill is proposed to be brought forward. There is unanimity on the part of all the boards of guardians on the main question. We all agree that the administration of the Common Poor Fund is something like an open scandal. We all agree that it is a disgrace that Westminster and the City should be called upon to subscribe money over which they have no control. I should think every Member would agree that to bring unity into the chaotic condition of London Poor Law administration would be an excellent thing. There is no human creature outside a lunatic asylum who thinks it is a good thing that one system of administration should be in force in one corner of London and another, diametrically opposite, in another. Every one in his senses agrees that there is disgraceful administration, and every one of the guardians who protested against the Minister's scheme would agree that those two points are great evils. What an easy job the Minister had under such circumstances! If he had deigned to go through the ordinary procedure consulting the administrative bodies concerned, I think a unanimous scheme would have been adopted. Anyhow, he would have obtained a scheme which would have been
agreeable to his own supporters. He has produced a scheme which offends and annoys everybody.
What we and the guardians are facing, is a piece of administration which seems to us to be a thoroughly bad piece of administration. There are a great many reasons for thinking that. I do not want to detain the House by going through these reasons in detail, but I will mention one or two reasons why the revision of the estimates by the Metropolitan Asylum Board, as proposed in Clause 2, is a very bad form of carrying out this matter. It is a silly business to attempt to produce uniformity by way of a revision of estimates. Can anybody imagine anything more ridiculous than to set 28 bodies to make the estimates and one body to correct them? If you want uniformity and prudent expenditure and all things that every reasonable person wants in Poor Law relief you have to control not the estimates, but the policy which leads up to the estimates.
This is a measure productive of the utmost possible amount of confusion and discomfort to all concerned. It is a thing which cannot work smoothly. The ordinary smooth, placid life of the Metropolitan Asylum Board is already over. That body is already being manned by militants from every board of guardians. That body will be the scene of the fiercest struggles. It will be thrown into violent controversy with almost every other board of guardians, and I do not exclude the City. The City Board of Guardians, with its natural pride, has written to say how it strongly disapproves of submitting its estimates to be revised by such an authority. If you want to have uniformity you have to control policy. That is why we have always said that the proper way to have dealt with this matter would have been to make London into a united district for the purpose of out-relief to the able-bodied, and that could have been done without hardly any legislation at mere little Bill to deal with the Common Poor Fund and to place the resources of the Common Poor Fund at the disposal of the Ministry. From the point of view of smooth administration, the plan contained in Clause 2 of proceeding by correcting estimates after they have been made is a bad and an ineffective plan and likely to lead to confusion.
The Metropolitan Asylum Board has no staff at all to deal with this matter. It has no staff of any kind to make inquiries, and therefore you are driven back to one of two equally disastrous alternatives. Either they will have to act blindly or they will have to create a staff for the purpose of making inquiries and duplicate in that way the already much too large staffs of the 28 boards of guardians. Our plan would have meant an economy of staff. Everybody who knows of the staffing, the clerical work and the rest of the administration of boards of guardians is aware that if you centralise boards of guardians and bring them under one management you will not need more staff but will be able to dispense with a great deal of the existing staff. The Minister, in Committee, actually said that to make London a united district would mean more staff. No, it is the making of the Metropolitan Asylum Board the authority which will mean either more staff or, as I have said, a blindfold performance of their duties. These are some of the reasons why the Metropolitan Asylum Board is a very bad body for that purpose.
I will come to another point. My hon. Friend has described how archaic and what an historical curiosity is the manner in which the representation of the London boards of guardians is shared out on the Metropolitan Asylum Board. There is more than that. The body is to be over-weighted by nominees of the Minister. There are to be 18 out of 55, quite sufficient to turn the balance between the two contending factions which we may expect to see on the Metropolitan Asylum Board. All the 18 nominees are to be utterly irresponsible people; not responsible to the electors, not responsible to the auditor, and not responsible technically to the Minister, and, therefore, not responsible to Parliament itself. This is another example of the extraordinary novelty which the Minister of Health has introduced into local government—the creation of persons who are his creatures, who are not technically responsible to him, and, therefore, not responsible to Parliament. The selection in this way of people who are neither electors nor guardians nor Members of Parliament is precisely the same device as was used with regard to the appointed guardians. I say that it is an entire novelty in local government. It is a new
thing, and a very bad thing indeed. The Minister who can get rid of these persons whenever he likes and who can appoint whoever he likes and for whose actions he need not answer to Parliament is being given a sort of illegitimate influence over the most important operations of local authorities. There are three classes of persons now—the auditors with their new powers irresponsible to Parliament; the newly-elected guardians, the right hon. Gentleman's own creation; and there are now these new powers to be given to a body which is to be overridden by the Minister's nominees.
I am not going to argue this Bill. We know that it is going to go through. We know that the objections of the Guardians of Westminster and of the City find no echo. We know that they are to be relied upon to follow the Minister. It is no use arguing the matter. The Bill is going through. If I could speak better than any Member on either side of this House, or reason like Euclid, or was possessed of the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) it would not make two pins difference. The thing is going through. I, therefore, end as I began, as an optimist. I like to look on the bright side of this thing. This is a Bill which every expert hates. It is a Bill which everybody who searched through it dislikes. It is a Bill which has made for the Minister a reputation for discourtesy towards London municipal government. It is one more stone to be thrown on to the cairn which will mark the unlamented death of this Government. From this point of view, it is a little thing, and every little thing helps, but it is one of those things which in cumulative effect will help to bring home to the country the confusion and failure that the Minister of Health has made of the Poor Law and the failure which this Government has made of one of the most important questions before the country.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I hardly dare rise after the eloquence to which we have just listened. I confess I regard with undisturbed equanimity the prospect of the cairn over my grave which the hon. Member has been imagining. This particular Clause is the one which seeks to establish some
control over the amount which London as a whole shall contribute for the expenses of individual boards of guardians. The Clause selects the Metropolitan Asylum Board as the body to which has to be delegated that measure of control. Both the last speakers have admitted that control is desirable. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. A. Greenwood), on the Second Reading of the Bill fully accepted the principle of control, and the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), who has just sat down, has gone further and said that it is a perfect disgrace that Westminster and the City of London should contribute to the expenses of Poplar without any control over that expenditure. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who moved the Amendment, does not want any control at all. He says that there is no necessity for any control.

Mr. LANSBURY: When did I say that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am just going to quote to the hon. Gentleman what he did say, if he will let me. He said in his speech, moving the rejection of this Clause that it was quite unnecessary to exercise any control and said that the Minister had that control already in his office.

Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that I said I stood for no control. He has quoted something which is very different. I told him that he had control at the present moment through his Department of the Common Poor Fund. That does not mean no control.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Then I understand the hon. Member is in favour of control?

Mr. LANSBURY: I have said it 50,000 times in this House, and you have told me that I have said it so often that you have got tired of hearing it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman does very often repeat himself, and possibly I may have been betrayed into misinterpreting him on this occasion. But I do not remember having heard him make that particular remark, and I am glad to know exactly what his view is. I now challenge his statement that such control as is provided by this Bill exists
in the Ministry. He is really much too familiar with the actual powers of the Minister of Health to try to persuade this House that the Minister of Health has now power with regard to particular items of the amounts which are sought to be charged upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund to say that these items should be disallowed. The Minister of Health has no such power. [Interruption.] That is a different matter altogether. It is quite true that certain salaries have to be sanctioned by the Minister of Health, and that unless they are, they cannot be a charge upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. That is true, but that is not the control contemplated in this Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will you tell us what is control?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has read the Bill, I presume. The House really might be misled if they were to accept what the hon. Member said, so I cannot allow the statement to pass that any such control in the hands of the Ministry to-day is comparable with the control that is given in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite object to the particular form of control given by the Bill.
I have noticed some confusion of thought in some of the speeches which have been made upon this Clause. Over and over again we have been told that this is a Measure for the purpose of cutting the relief given or the policy followed by particular boards of guardians. It is nothing of the kind. This Bill does not give power to exercise control over the actual relief that is given by particular boards of guardians. What we are endeavouring to do is to settle the amount of that relief which shall be a common charge upon London; an entirely different matter. Hon. Members opposite, as they have done more than once, suggest to me that I would not dare to propose such a thing for Birmingham, Manchester or any provincial town. I would remind them once more that there is no arrangement parallel to this in any provincial town. You would have to have pooling relations between, say, Birmingham, Smethwick, West Bromwich, Wednesbury, Walsall and Wolverhampton to provide anything like a parallel, and if such a pooling arrangement as that were proposed, I will undertake to say that the businesslike authorities of the Midlands would never allow it to go through unless there was
some common control over the policy. In London we have to face an arrangement under which the unions who pay to the Common Poor Fund have no control or voice Whatsoever in the allocation of the money, which is drawn automatically from the Fund, without their being able to, lift a finger to defend their own interests.
I think I am interpreting the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley correctly when I say that in his opinion the only way to deal satisfactorily with this problem in London would be to have in common over the whole district not merely a financial arrangement for meeting the charges of poor relief but also for the administration of poor relief itself.

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear! I should prefer that you reformed the Poor Law and abolished the boards of guardians; pending that, I would support with all my heart a central authority for London to govern and control the whole of the Poor Law administration of London.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that I am very far away from the hon. Member in that respect, but certainly it would be niggling legislation to deal with a big problem of that kind except as a whole. The hon. Member was good enough to suggest that this was a sort of trial run to see whether an arrangement of this kind would work, and if so, to adopt it permanently, instead of carrying out a more drastic reform. I think it was Lord Palmerston who was said to be more universally successful than any other foreign Minister in deceiving foreign diplomats, because he always told them the truth and they never believed him. The hon. Member seems likely to fall into the same error as the foreign diplomats, because whenever I tell him the truth he never believes me.

Mr. LANSBURY: Because your practice is so different.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is too ready to make up his mind and to assume that I have such Machiavellian designs in my mind as he suggests. The proposal in this Clause is, admittedly, on the face of it, merely a temporary proposal. The Bill itself was originally limited to five years, but has now been cut down in Committee to four
years. We explained in Committee that we had deliberately extended the Bill for the longer period in order to give time for the operation of any new legislation which may be introduced for the purpose of carrying out that complete reform of the Poor Law system to which the hon. Member has referred. Let me say something about the Metropolitan Asylum Board as the authority for revising the charges upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. I explained on the Second Reading of the Bill that various methods could have been adopted for setting up a body to exercise control. I did not contemplate at that time that this was to be more than a temporary arrangement. Obviously, if you are making a proposal which is simply to tide you over for a few years, it would be absurd to erect any more elaborate machinery than you can possibly avoid. It was that consideration which led me to put on one side the possibility which I certainly should have contemplated very seriously if I had been thinking of a permanent arrangement, setting up an ad hoc body which might have been constituted in such a way as to meet some of the arguments which have been put forward from the benches opposite.
I agree that if we were starting from the beginning to find the best body for a purpose of this kind, one would not constitute it exactly as the Metropolitan Asylum Board is constituted. We have a great many different bodies in London for one purpose or another, and it would be very undesirable to add to their number, especially in a case where the functions which that body performs are only to last for a comparatively short time. It was for that reason, and I think it was a good reason, that I looked around London to see what bodies were functioning which might be competent to carry out this work. There were only two such bodies. There was the London County Council, which I think everyone will agree is unsuitable for this purpose, and which itself, I am sure, would avoid if possible the taking on of so great a responsibility as this. Then there was the Metropolitan Asylum Board. It is true that the Asylum Board was constituted a good many years ago and that it no longer represents, as I believe it did at the time when it was constituted, the relative proportions of rateable value. If we were reconstituting it now it would probably
give a larger representation to the paying unions than now. Hon. Members opposite will not object 'because the constitution of the Board is a-little out of date in that respect.
It is not worth while to alter the constitution of this body for the short time that it will be asked to exercise the particular functions which are to be given to it under this Bill. It is a competent body. By the admission of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), it has been extremely successful in doing the work which it has to do; it is a body which has served with success, efficiency and businesslike methods, and I do not think that the duties which we are putting upon it now are such as require more expert authority than you can find among the members of that board. In their individual capacity the members of the board are familiar with the problem with which they will have to deal. It will not be their function to inquire whether relief given in any particular instance is adequate or excessive; but they will have to inquire whether the relief given in any particular union is of such a character that it ought not to be paid for by London as a whole, and that a certain part of it, at any rate more than the union desires, ought to be met out of the rates of that particular district.

Mr. KELLY: How can that be judged unless they are able to go into many of the individual cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think we shall find in practice, when this Bill has become law, that it will not be necessary to go into individual cases. By comparing the practice in one union with the practice in other unions, by taking the general averages, by hearing from the unions themselves what they may have to say as to the special character of their own district, and by such information as can be obtained from other sources, I think the board will be able to form a very fair idea of what would be the proper limits of the charges to be made upon the Common Poor Fund. These, at any rate, are the lines upon which I expect the Board to proceed. We had to choose between doing nothing at all, leaving things exactly as they are, or providing such a measure of con-
trol as was possible with an existing body. One hon. Member, I think it was the hon. Member for East Ham North, said that the board had no staff for this purpose and that they would have to provide a staff or that the board whose estimates were being inquired into would have to provide the staff.

Miss LAWRENCE: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. was speaking in favour of a united district, and I said that the united district would have a common staff and he able to settle the policy which led up to the estimate, instead of criticising the estimate.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not referring to what was said by the hon. Member to-day, but some observation in Committee upstairs. My point is that the board has a staff already which I believe will be sufficient- to enable them to carry through these new duties. If we were to set up a new body, as is proposed in an Amendment. which we are not to debate separately this evening, a new staff would have to be appointed and they would have to have new offices. When we have a body like the Asylum Board, experienced, competent, well-provided and equipped with all that is necessary, I think it will be a waste of money and a waste of energy to set up a new staff. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman said that we have to choose between doing nothing or adopting the proposal in this Bill. With great respect, I do not think that is the correct choice to put before the House. The responsibility for having to choose such a Bill as this rests with the Minister, who has neglected the opportunity to deal with the Poor Law as a whole. He has had three or four years in which to prepare his proposals and to bring the alternatives before the House. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about niggling legislation. If ever there was legislation which deserved the description of niggling, it is contained in this particular Clause. Here is a big question about which Parliament has made up its mind, and we are foisted off with a clumsy instrument like this. Under machinery of this kind friction is inevitable. The Minister
of Health seemed surprised that there is a general agreement about the necessity for control. As far as I can see, there is agreement not only on the Government side, but also amongst the Members of the Opposition that if you are going to take money from one authority and hand it over to another authority to spend there must be some control. I have always protested against the 'present system. It is thoroughly unsound and can only be justified as a temporary Measure. Year after year it has been introduced as a temporary Measure, and now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and blandly recommends this Bill because it is only going to last four years. It is not worthy of his pretensions to statesmanship and high principles. If control is going to work and be effective there must be something like general agreement between the controlling authority and the authority to be controlled. If the controlled authority does not accept the machinery there is bound to be friction, and in the end the organisation will break down.
It is very remarkable that both paying and receiving authorities have come to something like general agreement as to the kind of organisation which would be acceptable to them. They have come to an agreement, both the poorer unions and the richer districts, that they are prepared to accept an organisation composed of representatives of all the boards of guardians concerned. Would it not have been wiser for the right hon. Gentleman to have accepted this proposal? For some unknown reasons he has wedded himself to the Metropolitan Asylum Board which, as he says, will disappear in the future. Is it not a little clumsy to put this great power into the hands of an authority which is condemned to disappear? If this machinery is to work this organisation will have to engage new officials and a new staff. It cannot do the work with the existing organisation, and with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Metropolitan Asylum Board will have to go down and inspect the working of the administration in the various unions. That must mean fresh officials. It is most unfortunate, when you have the opportunity of getting something which will be acceptable to all concerned, that the Minister has allowed the opportunity to go by. I received a very interesting letter from an
organisation which is not prejudiced in favour of the present system—the Poplar Borough Municipal Alliance. It is an organisation which exists for the purpose of discrediting the work of the party to which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) belongs. They held a meeting which was attended mainly by limited companies, who do not have votes, and the wealthier sections of the community, and the concluding sentence of the resolution they passed is as follows:
We strongly protest against the Bill being left in its present form whereby it is left to the arbitrary decision of the Metropolitan Asylum Board as to whether any proposed expenditure of the guardians is to he provided or not out of the common fund.
That is their opinion. This particular Clause has no friends in any part of London. It has no friends in Westminster or in Poplar, or in the City of London. If there is any part of London which is entitled to call for safeguards with regard to expenditure out of the common fund it is the City of London, which is the second largest contributor to the fund and takes very little out of it. The City of London goes out of its way to take exception to this Clause and asks that there should be an organisation formed out of all the unions in the London area. At the eleventh hour I would suggest that this temporary Measure might be made workable if the proposal that the control should be in the hands of representatives of the people actually doing the work was accepted. Only in this way can it be made workable.
We have had great friction during the last few years and much suspicion. I hope this Bill will not be regarded as a solution. In spite of the reference to Lord Palmerston and the right hon. Gentleman's promise to the House that this is only a temporary Measure, I am afraid he has not the energy and initiative to put his beliefs into practical form. He has had three years of office and the backing of all parties in the proposals he put forward, but there is no reason to believe that. if, unfortunately, he is in office for another three years, his great Poor Law Bill will take a tangible form. He will be able to put forward the excuse that as he has put the present Bill on the Statute Book there is no immediate hurry for anything of a more per-
manent character. I hope the House will reject this Clause as a protest against the failure of the Government to deal with a problem which has been long overdue, which is demanded by public opinion, and which is to be postponed by the clumsy and unsatisfactory proposals in this Bill.

Mr. NAYLOR: It is a matter of great regret that a Bill, the main purpose of which is to extend certain provisions in previous enactments, should be made the means of introducing something entirely new in London government. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's further explanation of his reasons for introducing this Clause. I agree that he is justified in assuming that most Members of this House are in favour of some control over the expenditure of Poor Law guardians, and if this Measure had been brought forward with the sole intention of setting up a permanent body for that purpose we might have found ourselves nearer to agreement than we are now. What we object to is that the Minister should seek to introduce this new principle knowing, as he does, that for generations past the control already exercised by the Minister, and by boards of guardians themselves, has been sufficient for public purposes. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health looks at me with surprise, as if he was under the impression that the Minister has not sufficient control at the present time.
After all, the right hon. Gentleman need be concerned with one thing only in connection with Poor Law expenditure, and that is whether the law is being carried out. If the law is being carried out then the Minister has every reason to be satisfied with what is being done. If it is not, he has the remedy in his own hands; and he has not hesitated in the recent past, when he has been dissatisfied with the public policy of certain boards of guardians, to introduce a Special Audit Bill to put things right. Nobody wants this Bill except the Minister of Health. It was quite late in the day before the right hon. Gentleman took the trouble to consult the very body which is to have this power. The Metropolitan Asylum Board were not consulted until the eleventh hour, and while it is true that they cast their votes in a fairly
large majority in favour of accepting it, it was while we were considering the Bill in Committee, and, therefore, it was largely in the nature of accepting what was being thrust upon them rather than from any conviction that it was the kind of proposal they should accept. The Metropolitan Asylum Board has certain functions of its own which in no way fit, it for the special purpose laid down in this Clause. You are asking the Metropolitan Asylum Board through a system of elected representatives, to be a party to the expenditure of every board of guardians in London.
Although the Minister did his best to explain why it was necessary that the estimates of these boards of guardians should be closely examined by this specially appointed body, he did not point out in what way, during the past few years, those estimates had been wrongly drawn up. He has not pointed to any particular abuse on the part of London boards of guardians to justify such a revolutionary change in London government as this particular Clause implies. We have a right to expect some reason to be advanced in regard to the past actions of those who have hitherto been responsible for drawing up these estimates, before we are asked to transfer the responsibility to some other body to be set up under the Bill. Important bodies like the Metropolitan. Asylum Board have reluctantly accepted the proposal, and the London County Council, on which there is a majority of the friends of the Government, though they looked at it with suspicion have loyally voted in support of accepting the Bill; but it is true that when the Committee reported to the full Council after their examination of the Bill, they stated quite clearly that they did not want the Bill, but the Bill being there and they being called upon to support the Government, they were prepared to accept the Bill.
Then you have the opinion of the Board of Guardians for the City of London. I look around the House in a vain endeavour to see the two representatives of the. City of London. To-morrow afternoon we shall find those two representatives of the City claiming their ancient right to sit on the Front Government Bench, but when it comes to supporting the views of their own constituents on a poor law question we have to record that they have been weighed and found
wanting. If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say anything further on the matter, perhaps he will be good enough to point out just why it is that in a temperate Measure of this kind we should be asked to endorse an entirely new principle of supervision in London. What we want is a complete and comprehensive Measure reconstructing the whole poor law system for London. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with me in that point? No? He shakes his head in the affirmative, to show that he understands me. Why not? If the Government are contemplating a complete change of the poor law why not put Clause 2 on one side? It is only a matter of four years and the present system has done fairly well for four generations. Why bother about something that nobody likes? Why force the majority behind the Government to support something that no-one likes, merely for the matter of four years legislation? We are not defeating the Bill. We want the Bill but without Clause 2. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head in the affirmative again. He agrees with me?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I know what you want.

Mr. NAYLOR: I wish I could say that the Parliamentary Secretary's knowing what we want was an equivalent to saying that he was prepared to give us what we want. But that is too much to expect, even though he may be one of the most accommodating Members of the Government that it is our pleasure to debate with. Members of the House who will decide this issue have not heard the argument. It is a curious commentary on the procedure of this House that when the Report stage of a Bill is being considered and that stage is being taken with the intention of preserving the rights of Members to discuss whatever principles may be contained in a Bill, that right is so little regarded in this House that Members are not here to listen to arguments. Consequently although we have proved our case up to the hilt, although we have crushed the Minister of Health to such an extent that he has been obliged to leave the Chamber, although we have carried the day in every respect—in spite of all that we have done, I fear we shall have the regretful experience of losing our Amendment.

Mr. PALING: I never heard the Minister of Health put up a weaker case for anything than he has done in regard to this Bill. He began by picking flaws in the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) by saying that everyone was agreed more or less that there ought to be some kind of control except the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. The right hon. Gentleman was pulled up for that statement before he had spoken half a minute, and had to admit that there he was wrong. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley is in favour of some control. The right hon. Gentleman was then driven back to the only argument that I have heard from beginning to end on this Bill, and that was this—that he has virtually admitted time after time that the authority is not a desirable authority, but that because it was for such a short time he hoped it would remain in operation; he thought the authority, bad as it was, was good enough to operate the Bill for the short time that it has to remain. That appears to me to be a. very weak argument indeed, particularly in face of the fact that the authorities concerned on both sides of the case, those that pay in and those that receive, have already met and have suggested a kind of Board which would be agreeable to everyone, which would cost little or nothing, while the question of staff could easily have been arranged; which would have been agreeable to everyone and would have worked amicably even for the period of four years.
I understand, in addition. that when this Rill was brought on someone was asking for control and cast his eyes round and looked at this place and that and the other, and examined one authority and another authority, and then finally decided on this. Probably the reason was that it was about the most reactionary authority that he could lay his hands on and the one most likely to conform to the demands which the Ministry of Health would make. That being so, he never thought it well to consult the people whose estimates are to be taken into consideration, but has adopted this authority without even having the courtesy to approach them. The thing in itself is almost unprecedented in the history of the Minister of Health. I am a little doubtful as to whether the
Minister's ideas in this matter are as above-board and as kindly as he would have us believe. When I look through the right hon. Gentleman's record I find that since he has been at the head of this Department almost everything he has done has been in the direction of trying to interfere with elected authorities and to substitute for them nominated and autocratic bodies. I remember the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act. We know how the Minister's own nominees were sent to two or three places, there to carry out the ideas of the Ministry of Health because the elected representatives in those districts had not acted as the Minister thought they ought to have done.
I know that these nominees of the right hon. Gentleman have cut down the scales of relief in many cases to such a point that it is almost impossible for the people living under them to keep body and soul together. That was a reactionary business and the present proposal is on the same lines. The Minister is taking power away from the elected authorities and putting it into the hands of nominees. If the body to which it is proposed to give control under this Bill, comes into operation—as I suppose it will—I wonder if the Minister will he as proud of it as he has been of these other actions. If this Measure has results such as the result mentioned in the House last week from Chester-le-Street the case of Mary Race, I wonder if the Minister will then boast about what the nominated members have done in cutting down this, that or the other expenditure. I wonder if he will ask us to look at the reduction in rates. I suppose if this board's control comes into operation in this matter the amounts which London and Westminster and Holborn have to pay will be cut down and that the Minister will be in a position to boast of that result. But I dare say that if cases arise, such as the case from Chester-le-Street which I have just mentioned, the Minister will say as little as he said last Wednesday. I do the right hon. Gentleman the credit of believing that he was ashamed of that business, and said as little as possible about it.
Another experiment which he with his admirable lieutenant has made is
the Audit (Local Authorities) Act. Here was another case in which they thought that an elected authority had too much power. The Minister could not bring in another Default Bill. He could not substitute his own nominated dictators for the elected representatives in this case, and he had to find a more subtle means of dealing with the matter. He found that means in the Audit Act. Under that Measure where these elected authorities spent more than he in his high and mighty wisdom, thought fit, the auditor could come down on them and impose certain penalties. That was the second experiment and I think there has been a third, though not by way of legislation. We have had in Abertillery the working of the system which is called "the big three." That is a third experiment in dictatorship, and in doing away with democratic control. I wonder if the result of this Measure will be as good as the results have been in South Wales as illustrated by the Report of the Commissioners who were sent there. If the authority which is to be set up under this Bill reduces the people concerned to an even lower state of misery and destitution than they are in now, I wonder will the Minister come to this House and suggest that the only way to meet the situation is by private charity.
There was never a more reactionary Minister at the Ministry of Health, and the present Bill is in keeping with everything he has done. During the Committee proceedings the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye), who has, I understand, been a Mayor of Westminster, one of the paying-in-boroughs, argued that the amounts paid by these boroughs had grown tremendously, and expressed the hope that they would be cut down. In my opinion that is the pith of this Bill. That is why the Minister has selected this particular body. He regards it as the body which is most likely to carry out his purpose. The Metropolitan Asylum Board has, I understand, 18 nominated members out of 55. The paying-in parties and the receiving parties are rep resented in almost equal proportions on the elective part of the Board, so that the 18 nominated members will have virtual control. They will be removed from the people who have to receive relief in the poorer districts. They will never come
into actual contact with the results of cutting down these grants, and because of this fact and because they are doing it in bulk, they will be the better able to achieve the Minister's object. That is the main reason why they have been chosen.
All along the line the Minister is seeking to bring this kind of authority into operation in connection with Poor Law relief—people who are not responsible to the electors. I suppose the Minister has found out that the electors are so persuaded of the humanity and justice of paying these poor people decent rates of subsistence that, even if it means paying more in rates, they continue to elect the representatives who give decent treatment to the poor. The Minister, therefore, has to find somebody else who will regard the question from a different angle. He wants people of his own choosing—the most reactionary he can lay his hands upon—and while we had here an opportunity of setting up a body which would have been representative of all the parties concerned, and to which all would have agreed, the Minister has been guilty of discourtesy to the people concerned by bringing in this proposal. Not only that, hut he will probably prove to be guilty of doing to the poor of London the thing which has already been done in Chester-le-Street, South Wales and West Ham. I suppose it is vain to hope that even yet the Minister may alter this Bill and substitute for the body proposed here one which would more nearly represent the ideals for which the people stand.

Mr. KELLY: I had not intended to take part in this discussion, but having heard the statements—not arguments—of the Minister as to why he is adopting this line of policy in Clause 2 of the Bill, I would be failing in my duty if I did not enter a strong protest against it and do my utmost to have this Clause eliminated. Ever since coming to London, many years ago, I have wondered why it was that in London we were split up into so many fragments, why there was no community of interest between North, South, East and West of this great place; and if the proposal of the Minister had been to do something that would bring about that community of
interest and make London as a whole realise its responsibility to its fellows, I would welcome the proposal.
But we have found the Minister stating this afternoon that he had looked round for some particular institution upon which he could rely to carry out whatever is in the mind of the Ministry of Health, and he has seized upon a Board that is not responsible to the people of London, a. Board that has had upon it in the past, and probably has in the present, people who have been nominated to the position without the slightest experience of the industry or commercial life of London, whose knowledge has been limited to the extent of having come into London and done a little social work because they have felt they ought to do something for the easy life they were living in other directions. That is the type of person who has been sitting upon the Metropolitan Asylum Board, and that is the body which is being asked to decide Whether or not the estimates presented by the Woolwich Board of Guardians, dealing with the poor people of Eltham, for example, are satisfactory. The people on this body may not know where Eltham is, they may not know anything about its life and its hutments and the suffering that has gone on there for years, but they are to be asked to decide whether they have a right to receive, out of the Common Fund, an amount of money in order to help tide them over some of that suffering period.
I am amazed that in the year 1928 the Government should come forward with a proposal such as that. When, this evening, I interjected a question as to how these people were to judge of the estimates, the Minister said that after a time they would be able to deal with them. Really, we expect something better from the Government, than to suggest that a body which is going to gain experience as the time goes on is to decide as to Whether the next half-year's estimate is one that may be passed or reported to the Ministry as being extravagant. He said that they would be able to compare one union area with another, and that if the conditions in Westminster were at a certain level—[Interruption]—it may be amusing to some hon. Members, but this is serious for the people who are suffering because of industry being so badly organised that they are not able to find work and secure
wages. It is suggested that those people from Westminster who sit on the Metropolitan Asylum Board will be able to judge as to the conditions of Camberwell, of Woolwich, or of Poplar, and that if Poplar happens to ask for what appears to them to be an amount greater than is commensurate with what they believe are the demands of Westminster, then there is extravagance in Poplar. To ask us to agree to this body as the one that shall decide these questions is asking something that I hope no London Member, whatever may be his political views, will be prepared to accept.
Reference has been made to the London County Council, of which the Parliamentary Secretary was not only an ornament but a very useful member—I want to pay that tribute to him—but the moment that you go to that body with a Bill from the party now in power, when their own friends are in a majority on that Council, if you think they are going to do other than accept it, you are asking too much, even from the London County Council, and it is not an argument that warrants this Amendment being turned down by this House. I do not want to repeat what has been said already, but it is said that this is for a short period of four years only. May I point out that the Minister himself expects that it will take a considerable time before the Metropolitan Asylum Board has gained experience enough to do its work properly? How many half-years' estimates have to be placed before the Board before it is skilled in the real sense of understanding what ought to be passed? Doos the right hon. Gentleman expect that body to gain this experience before the four years have passed?

I notice that this Board will be expected to decide whether any reduction is such as it may think fit to make. On what basis is it going to work in order to judge as to what reduction is required? It will not interview the applicants for relief, it will not examine the industrial or commercial condition of the district, it will not go into arty of those details, and yet 18 nominated people, without responsibility to London, who may have been doing good social work on some of the care committees in connection with our schools, and who may have had this job handed out to them as a reward for that work—I have seen it done in the years that are gone—those are the people who are expected to make reductions in the estimates presented by the guardians and then to furnish the district auditor with their own proposals. I have been surprised at some of the proposals presented by this Government, but I am more surprised at this particular proposal than at most of the others. One thing certain is that they have a contempt for elected bodies, a contempt which they have shown by their many proposals. Here we have that contempt shown for London, and I hope that London recognises the opinion that this Government hold of it, and that it will deal with this Government as London is dealt with; just as London is split up into fragments, I hope to find this Government split up into fragments when the General Election takes place.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the end of page 2, line 19, stand part of !he Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 115.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[8.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clarry, Reginald George


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cobb. Sir Cyril


Albery, Irving James
Brass, Captain W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Briscoe, Richard George
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Brittain, Sir Harry
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cope, Major William


Ashley, Lt,-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Atkinson, C.
Buchan, John
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davies. Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Campbell, E. T.
Dixey, A. C.


Bethel, A.
Carver, Major W. H.
Drewe, C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Ellis, R. G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


England, Colonel A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lamb, J. Q.
Savery, S. S.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Fermoy, Lord
Looker, Herbert William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Fielden, E. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shepperson, E. W.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Gates, Percy
MacIntyre, Ian
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Grace, John
Mac Robert, Alexander M
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Storry-Deans, R.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Margesson, Captain D.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hamilton, Sir George
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hammersley, S. S.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Haslam, Henry C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Pennefather, Sir John
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perring, Sir William George
Wells, S. R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pilcher, G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hills, Major John Waller
Preston, William
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hilton, Cecil
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson. R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raine, Sir Walter
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ramsden, E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Withers, John James


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Womersley, W. J.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane., Stretford)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.



Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hurst, Gerald B.
Rye, F. G.
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Salmon, Major I.
Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Rose, Frank H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter. Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Briant, Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Simon, Rt. Hon Sir John


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cove, W. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Strauss, E. A.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Sullivan, Joseph


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gardner, J. P.
Mackinder, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C, L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Greenall, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Trevslyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Wellock, Wilfred


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Westwood, J.




Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Wright, W.


Whiteley, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Wiggins, William Martin
Windsor, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that any board of guardians whose estimates have been reduced in accordance with the provisions of this Sub-section shall have the right of appeal to the Minister, whose decision shall be binding.
This Amendment gives the right of appeal to the Minister. I have listened to the discussion which we have had to-day, and I have read the proceedings of the Committee on the Bill upstairs, and, as far as I have been able to discover, this extraordinary Bill is not only a small one, but a very temporary one. But in Poor Law matters the temporary is apt to become permanent. In days when I was less sceptical of the promises of Governments I recollect standing for a board of guardians, about 20 years ago, and stating in my election address that perhaps it was not much good putting up as a candidate, as the guardians were going to be abolished, which was the report at that time. The position to-day is much the same as it was then. The Minister of Health has been incubating a Poor Law Amendment Bill, or a revolution of the Poor Law, for a very long time, but it has always been postponed, and whether he will actually produce anything even if he returns to his position after the next election is very uncertain. In this Bill it is proposed to put very drastic powers in the hands of a very untried authority. T do not say anything at the moment regarding the constitution of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, of which I was formerly a member, because a good deal has already been said, and I hope to say a little more on Third Reading, but the fact is that there ought to be some sort of appeal.
The Board is to act in a quasi-judicial capacity, but it has had no experience whatever of judicial functions We do not know how long that Board will remain in existence, or how the Poor Law is to remain in existence, or whether this Act will be really temporary or one of those temporary Acts which are constantly renewed: therefore there is a clear case for giving some sort of appeal. Judging by the past, I think perhaps the Conser-
vative Ministry and the present Minister of Health are likely to be more temporary than the Metropolitan Asylum Board, and, therefore, while I am not sanguine of getting any great change in the composition of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, I am quite sanguine that in a very short time we shall have a change in the Minister. That is why I am eager to see a provision for a right of appeal added to the Bill. There is another reason why there should be a right of appeal. I have not had very much opportunity of looking at this Bill, and I was not able to be present during its earlier stages, but one of the curious things about it is that while it gives the Metropolitan Asylum Board the power to deal with the estimates of boards of guardians, and to approve some and to reduce others, it lays down no criterion on which the Board is to work. There is nothing to say on what grounds the Board should approve or disapprove.
9.0 p.m.
I have not the Minister's great faith in the Metropolitan Asylum Board. The Board is to hear and take into consideration any representation made to them on behalf of boards of guardians. I do not know what process is to be followed, whether their representations are to be made by counsel or whether they are to be written representations, and in any case I think we need some means of getting over possibly the hasty and possibly even the prejudiced action of this authority. No one supposes that the Metropolitan Asylum Board as a Board will sit to go through all these estimates. It will doubtless put the work on to a committee. One does not know what the composition of the committee may be. There is nothing to prevent that committee consisting entirely of nominated members, who will be mere partisans of the Minister of Health, because I have never known a Minister who was so eager to put in his own nominees wherever he could. It may be that that committee will be drawn entirely from the paying unions, or it may be that it may he made up of those of the receiving unions. The one thing that is certain, from my experience of the Board, is that the Board as a whole will not act. If anyone has
been present at meetings of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, they will know that they are got through in record time. When I first attended them, it was a matter of pride not to take more than 17 or 18 minutes over a meeting, and until the arrival of myself and several other Labour members, which rather upset the practice, the average time was about 20 minutes. The Board, an old-established Board, has a pride in its traditions, and will doubtless follow the same methods in considering the report of this special committee which will deal with this matter. Therefore I say that the work will in reality be done by the committee. The committee may consist entirely of non-elected persons, because in the peculiar constitution of the Metropolitan Asylum Board there is no reason why any member should be even an elected guardian, as boards of guardians can appoint as representatives someone who is not even one of their members. When we are putting this peculiar power into the hands of this very peculiar, anomalous and antique body, the Metropolitan Asylum Board, we should at least have some loophole for an appeal.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): An hon. Member appears to be smoking, which is quite out of order.

Mr. ATTLEE: I very much hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will accept this Amendment, and will see that we ale not putting an undue burden on the Minister.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Amendment.
If any arguments need to be given in support of this Amendment I think they are to be found in the speech of the Minister of Health when he was replying to a previous discussion. He told us in the course of that speech that when he was selecting the authority to deal with the administration of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, if he had been considering this question from the permanent point of view he would not have selected that body, and he agreed with the criticisms which were offered from these benches regarding the constitution of the Board. He said it was in an
anomalous position and that the conditions were very different to-day from what they were when the board was created. He said that he did not wish to make any reference at all to the competence of the Metropolitan Asylum Board or its efficiency. I am not critical of the efficiency of the Metropolitan Asylum Board. That may be a matter of argument, but if we assume, for the sake of argument, that it carries out its present duties efficiently, that is not to say that it will carry out these new duties efficiently. A crossing sweeper may do his work efficiently, but we would not make him the captain of a battleship, which would be other work with which he was not familiar. The Metropolitan Asylum Board is in precisely that position. It does its work as a crossing sweeper very well, but it is not in any sense of the word able to do this particular work efficiently, and therefore there are bound to be difficulties between the boards of guardians and the Metropolitan Asylum Board, and if there is to be someone to decide between them we say that the Minister ought to be the person to decide.
I would ask the Minister to take a little more into his own hands. He is doing all he can to try to escape responsibility to Parliament in these matters. In the case of the nominated guardians, instead of taking his courage into his hands and administering tile affairs in those unions, he set up nominated guardians, and when we try to criticise their actions we find we cannot do so, because he tells us,, what is technically true, that. these nominated guardians have all the powers of elected guardians, and therefore he has no control over them. As long as the right hon. Gentleman can escape criticism he is happy. We want him to have the courage to face criticism in regard to what is done in this matter. We hope he will decide between the unions and be able to take the responsibility for the policy in London.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sure we were all very pleased to see the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) intervene in this Debate, and I wish he could have been entrusted with a more satisfactory Amendment so far as his new effort is concerned. Under this Bill, it is suggested that the Metropolitan Asylum
Board should review the various Estimates of boards of guardians in London, and come to some conclusion concerning them. Now the hon. Member for Lime-house comes forward with a suggestion that the decision of the Metropolitan Asylum Board should be subject to review by the Minister of Health. The Metropolitan Asylum Board is not a judicial body, and anybody who has followed the discussions on this Bill cannot describe it as a judicial body. I should have thought, if the hon. Member for Limehouse was so anxious to have a judicial body to review the decisions of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, he would have looked round for a real judicial body. He might have consulted the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) on the subject, and he would probably have suggested a much more judicial authority than the one put forward in this Amendment, such as some eminent Judge of the Divisional Court. In a matter like this it seems to me that the Labour party are almost bankrupt of suggestion when they fall back upon the Minister of Health, in whom they have frequently declared they can place no trust in regard to these matters. Now they come forward and say that the Minister of Health is a person whom they are quite prepared to trust in a judicial position to review the decision of the Metropolitan Asylum Board.

Mr. LANSBURY: Because we can review him.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley says "because we can review him," but for a long time he has been complaining that, although he can always review the actions of my right hon. Friend, he never gets any further.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He is not the Minister of Health, but the Minister of Death.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs is not entitled to use that phrase which was first used by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). Another important consideration is that, according to the views of hon. Members opposite, the present Minister of Health will not be in office very long, and his successor will be a Labour Minister of Health. Consequently, this proposal surprises me
very much. I suggest that in a matter of this kind it is wise to leave the Minister of Health out altogether. I know that in this case hon. Members opposite will not be satisfied with any opinion given by the present Minister of Health. It may very well be that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) will be the. Minister of Health if the Labour party are returned at the next election and we might have some criticisms to make as to what he would be likely to do.

Mr. NAYLOR: The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with certain parts of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), but he has left other parts untouched. I regret to be placed in the position of trying to press any further responsibilities upon the Minister of Health, and, if I had my way, I should relieve the right hon. Gentleman of all his responsibilities; in fact, I would relieve all the Ministers in the present Government of their responsibilities, and I think we should be able to do that if we had the opportunity given to us. The Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the arguments which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Limehouse, who pointed out the peculiar constitution of the Metropolitan Asylum Board. My hon. Friend also referred to the power which the Metropolitan Asylum Board possesses to delegate their duties to a committee. Supposing that the Metropolitan Asylum Board appoints a committee for this purpose, one can readily understand them saying to themselves as a board: "It is quite impossible for such a body as the Metropolitan Asylum Board to consider in detail the complicated estimates that will be submitted by the various London Boards of Guardians," and they will decide to refer them to a committee. Supposing, in addition to that, they take advantage of the power they possess to delegate their duties under Clause 2, and expect the committee to carry out all their duties in that respect.
Supposing the committee, without reference to the Metropolitan Asylum Board, decide to reduce the estimates of a certain board of guardians, and that particular board of guardians object to what the committee has done and frankly refuse to reduce their estimates. I suppose the committee will say to them,
"Whatever you spend in excess of the estimates you must provide out of the rates of your own locality." That will be the answer. On the face of it, it seems logical, but it is by no means fair. If there were a judicial authority to determine these matters, there might be some measure of confidence in its decisions, but, if the duties are given to a delegated Committee, as may possibly be done, it seems to me that it will be impossible to place any confidence in their decisions, and that a good deal of delay will be caused. It would be far better that the Minister should be able to step in and say either that an estimate is properly reduced or that it is not properly reduced; and I think the fact that we on this side of the House are prepared to place our confidence in the Minister to that extent should be in itself an inducement to him to accept the Amendment.

Mr. PALING: The Parliamentary Secretary makes great play with the fact that, because we criticise the Minister and say we cannot trust him, and do not like what he does, and all the rest of it, it is rather contradictory that we should now ask for this right of appeal to him. I do not think there is anything contradictory about it at all. We do not like the business going to the Metropolitan Asylum Board in the first instance, but we do say that, when it is left to the Metropolitan Asylum Board without the Minister having any control whatever, there will be no one to control the Metropolitan Asylum Board, and this House will have no voice in the matter. If the Bill goes through without this Amendment, and anything occurs under the new authority which any Member of this House wants to criticise, or about which he wants to ask questions, every time he brings it forward the Minister will get out of it by saying "I have no authority and no control whatever over them," and we shall have no power of getting at it. That is why, if the Metropolitan Asylum Board is to be the authority, we ask that there may be a right of appeal to the Minister, which will also mean the right of talking the matter over and discussing it in this House. I contend that there is nothing contradictory about that, in spite of the fact that we do not like the Minister of Heath, and I less than anyone.
The Parliamentary Secretary talks about this being contradictory, but I remember that last Friday afternoon, when we were objecting to the taking of certain powers out of the hands of the local authorities and putting them in the hands of the Registrar-General, he, with his cherubic face, told the House in his most benign manner that the House of Commons would have the inestimable privilege, if these powers were put into the hands of the Registrar-General, of being able to criticise the Minister of Health, because the control then would be vested in him; and he pointed out to the House that it was worth all that was being given away by taking these powers from the local people, and putting them in the hands of the Registrar-General, to nave the right to criticise, through the Minister of Health, what was being done. He asked the House to accept the Bill under discussion in virtue of that fact, but now, when we come here and ask for an appeal simply to get some right of criticism in this House, he turns round and says that we are contradicting ourselves and there is no logic in us. If there is any contradiction, it lies with the Parliamentary Secretary himself.
The House has a right to control this business. Day after day, month after month, year after year, particularly while this Government has been in power, not only have the rights of local authorities and elected representatives been filched from them, but the rights of Members of Parliament themselves, and, if this dictatorial power is to be put in the hands of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, the least that the Minister can grant us is this right of appeal, so that Members of the House of Commons may have something to say to the Minister himself, and the Minister may be made responsible. I hope, therefore, that even now it may not be too late, in view of the fact that we have proved that the right hon. Gentleman has been contradictory rather than we, he will give way to the logic he has put forward and accept this Amendment.

Mr. LANSBURY: Before the vote is taken, I want to put one or two other considerations to the right hon. Gentleman. First of all, I want to say that there is nothing inconsistent in our asking that the Minister shall be the final court of appeal, seeing that both
the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have agreed that this is a temporary Measure, that it is a novel proposal which has not been tried before, and that it is for the purpose of carrying us over a transition period. No one at present knows at all what view the Metropolitan Asylum Board will take of these new powers, and no one has yet told us—I asked the Minister to do so just now—what particular form of control they are going to exercise. Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have made great play with what they consider to be our inconsistencies in this matter. I said the other day that, so far as I understood, the Metropolitan Asylum Board were not going to control individual cases, and to-night the Minister has said that that is so. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, even now, with the permission of the House, would tell us how they are going to control these matters, and what form the control is going to take, because, until that is settled, we are not in a position to judge whether this body is really the kind of body that ought to determine such matters. What is evident is that the local authorities in London are going to be deprived of the control of their finance, and it is also the case that power is going to be given to a nominated body—not an elected body—in London to undo the bargain that was come to in 1921. That is going to be done, not by direct legislation, but by handing certain powers to the Metropolitan Asylum Board.
I say that, when a thing of that kind is done, the one safeguard that this House has, even though there is a tremendous Conservative majority, is that the Minister in some way shall be brought in as the responsible person. I maintain that he is responsible now, in spite of what has been said. I maintain that the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund is still in existence, that there is still a receiver of that Fund, and that that receiver has certain powers. I quite admit that, if this Bill goes through as it stands, the powers will rest very largely with the Metropolitan Asylum Board, so that even the salaries paid, the number of officers and so on, and the amounts of relief given, will be under the control of this body, in an
entirely indirect and, as I think, a very bad manner. This body will not control individual cases, but will have control in the bulk, in the lump. This Committee of the Metropolitan Asylum Board will be able, by cutting down the estimates, to force the boards of guardians to cut down their expenditure, or, in the alternative, to raise their rates. The object of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund is to obviate that; it was to levy this burden in an equitable manner over the whole of the metropolitan boards of guardians.
There is a further thing to consider in regard to this. The Minister, I maintain, has all the information at his disposal to determine whether the action, either of the Metropolitan Asylum Board itself, or of individual boards of guardians, is right or wrong. I tried to make that clear last Thursday, hut through the density of the Minister and his assistant I was unable to get it across, as they say in America, because either they did not understand or did not want to do so. The Minister knows perfectly well that he is armed with a number of inspectors and assistant inspectors who have done a very considerable amount of work in preparing the reports, some of which have been put before this House, concerning administration. He knows perfectly well, too, that under the Audit Act, the auditors have enormous powers and that they have to carry out this business of making reports to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department as to the condition of affairs. Consequently, if there is anyone in the position of giving a judgment as to whether cutting down is right or wrong it is the Minister. He will have all that information, and in my judgment he ought to he the person—whether it is the present Minister or one of his successors—to have the right to hear appeals from aggrieved hoards of guardians.
When the right bon. Gentleman, in his chaffing manner, says, "You are very inconsistent, because you are always telling us that we will not do what you want us to do," that is all beside the point. The point is that the only place where we can challenge this thing, if our Amendment is carried, is this House, and, although we may not at the particular moment carry our point alto-
gether, we shall be able to give publicity to the action of the Minister, whereas it is perfectly certain once this power is given to the Metropolitan Asylum Board we shall not be allowed to put questions. It is very difficult to get questions on local government matters put through, because we are not supposed to ask the Minister about matters over which local authorities have power and control, and in this instance you are going to say to the whole of the 28 boards of guardians in London: "This non-elected, partially selected body in London shall control your expenditure, and you shall not have any sort of appeal against their decision." You are removing the publicly-elected authorities' business out of the ken of the publicly-elected representatives and putting them and their expenditure under the control of this nominated and selected body. I cannot imagine the reason. I have not heard any reason. The right hon. Gentleman never takes the trouble to reason anything. He just throws statements at you and leaves them there. That is an excellent way of answering your opponents, but I have heard nothing from any of his supporters, and there has been no speech from that side of the House to-night. We know why—because there is not one of them who can speak on behalf of their constituents against the policy we are advocating to-night. They are bound to keep silent, because their own authorities have backed us up in our attitude towards the proposals of the Bill.
I cannot understand how anyone who believes in local government or in the rights of elected local authorities to carry on their work in a constitutional manner can oppose this very moderate Amendment, seeing that all that it does is to give aggrieved boards of guardians the right to go to the Minister and put their case before him and give the House of Commons the right to challenge any decision of the Minister. That is what we are out for to-night—that the House of Commons should have the right to review and challenge any decision that the Minister may make. There is nothing unusual about this, because it is exactly what was the custom under the law with regard to the Common Poor Fund when it was first initiated, namely, that the Minister was responsible and that we could challenge his decision in this
House. This Bill removes all that from the control of the duly elected local authorities and also from Parliament itself. I should have thought that the constitutional Members, and those who believe in upholding the ancient Constitution of this country, would have been only too glad to support us. Anyhow, I hope some of them will, even blindfold, find their way into the Lobby with us when we divide.

Miss LAWRENCE: I just want to say a few words from the point of view of a very strict constitutionalist. The powers of local government, as far as local authorities are concerned, are no doubt matters of dispute, but, broadly, it remains a fact that Parliament has provided certain powers for local authorities, and placed them under the very jealous and careful control of the Minister, and, through that control, made them responsible to this House. It is quite true the local authorities have a sphere—a very limited sphere—of government in respect of which they are independent. It is an utterly vicious and quite a new thing in the constitution to have an authority charged with important public functions which is neither responsible to the electors nor to Parliament nor even to the ordinary law of the land.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the excessively exceptional position in which this particular body has been placed. We have passed an Audit Act. The House will remember how very much we discussed the functions of the district auditor and how strong the Minister was as to the importance of having an independent civil servant to control the estimate of local authorities. I ask the House to mark the fact that this particular board are free from the auditor altogether. Let us see what the position—and this is not too wild a supposition—may possibly be under the Metropolitan Asylum Board. Let me point out what would happen. The Metropolitan Asylum Board takes the place of the auditors. Every farthing of expense which the guardians put forward, whether in the view of the auditor or under common law it is legal or not—would be free from any possibility of surcharge at all. That is the sort of body we get, and what we say is that
somebody in the world must be responsible for this body. They are free from the district auditors anyhow, and whatever expenses they certify will pass. They are free from the electors, because they are indirectly elected persons and are overweighted by a great number of irresponsible persons. They are to be free from Parliament, and the Minister is not to be responsible for their decision. There is to be no appeal from the Minister or interference from Parliament. We could not even get the minor concession that their determinations should be laid on the Table of the House.
What a little monster of a local authority we have created when viewed in the light of any independent constitutional position! We have this poor little, semi-elected authority, overweighted by private Members, put up in a position higher than any county council or council in any part of the world, free from Parliament and free from the Minister, and able to flout the district auditor, and it is the constitutional party that has done all this! I can imagine how Members opposite would have rallied to the defence of the constitutional principles of this country if we had brought in such a little abortion of a Bill as this. We have had no explanation why this particular authority should be placed in this position of independence and power. When the Minister himself got up to speak, he did not defend it. He said, "I have to do something. I looked around London, and this seemed to me the least offensive of all the schemes I could find. It is a poor little thing but, gentlemen, remember this, that is is only a very temporary Measure. I should not dream of excusing it if it was not to die so soon." That is a fair summary of the Minister's speech in defence of the second Clause, which contains

practically the whole of the Bill. It is that sort of device that we are now asked to pass into law. There is not a word to be said for it, there has not been a rational word said for it, and I am profoundly disappointed in the Minister. Until now, though I have disapproved of his policy, I have always said he was a good and ingenious administrator. His other little Bills have been bad from the point of view of policy, but they have been ingeniously drafted to meet their ends. Here is a Bill that cannot be defended. It is full of anomalies, full of the strangest provisions.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not confining herself to the Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: I will not pursue the matter, but my point was that the very oddness of the body makes it important that Parliament should keep its eye upon it. I can hardly elaborate how specially important it is that Parliament should exercise over this body an even stricter control than over other elected bodies without pointing out what a queer little authority it is and in what an extraordinary position it has been placed by the Minister. In the hierarchy of local government this place in which we stand has its place. To release any sort of local authority from the control of the electors and from the law of the land, as represented by the auditor, and from the power of Parliament itself is to do something which, though on a small scale, is a crime against any principle of wisdom in self-government and against the authority of Parliament.

Question put "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 187.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[9.40 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cove, W. G.
Hardie, George D.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Percy A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Day, Harry
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, C.
Hayday, Arthur


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Baker, Walter
England, Colonel A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gardner, J. P.
Hirst, G. H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Broad, F. A.
Gibbins, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bromley, J.
Greenall, T.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buchanan, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Charleton, H. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Compton, Joseph
Grundy, T. W.
Kelly. W. T.


Connolly, M.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Kennedy, T.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Strauss, E. A.


Kirkwood, D.
Rose, Frank H.
Sullivan, J.


Lansbury, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.


Lawrence, Susan
Scrymgeour, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lee, F.
Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph


Lowth, T.
Sexton, James
Tomlinson, R. P.


Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Townend, A. E.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Viant, S. P.


Mackinder, W.
Shinwell, E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wellock, Wilfred


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sitch, Charles H.
Westwood, J.


March, S.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W.


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wiggins, William Martin


Oliver, George Harold
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, David (Swansea, E)


Palin, John Henry
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Potts, John S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Purcell, A. A.
Stamford, T. W.
Windsor, Walter


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell



Riley, Ben
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Charles Edwards


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, R. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Makins, Brigadler-General E.


Albery, Irving James
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Fermoy, Lord
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzoni Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Atkinson, C.
Gates, Percy
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Goff, Sir Park
Pennefather, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grace, John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bethel, A.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Perring, Sir William George


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilcher, G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George
Preston, William


Brass, Captain W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A


Buchan, John
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rye, F. G.


Burman, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Hilton, Cecil
Savery, S. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Skelton, A. N.


Charteris, Brigadler-General J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Christie, J. A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker K.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Couper, J. B.
Jephcott, A. R.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Looker, Herbert William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dixey, A. C.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Drewe, C.
Lumley, L. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dairymple


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)




Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Womersley, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Margesson.


Withers, John James
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



Wolmer, Viscount
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day Six months."
First of all I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the kind remarks he made just now. I regret that my absence has prevented me from taking part in the discussions on this Bill at an earlier stage, but I should like some explanation of the Bill because it seems to me the whole machinery of this Measure is entirely misconceived. If one looks at the machinery set up by the Common Poor Fund, it is laid down that certain sums of money expended by boards of guardians are to be repaid on certain definite terms. That has been continued year after year with variations for many years. Now we have an entirely new thing produced in this Bill, and that is the dealing with estimates of expenditure of boards of guardians. We have, therefore, two entirely different systems. I want to know how the Minister of Health is to reconcile them. In the Poor Law Act, 1927, there is the setting up of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and in Section 199 is to be found the list of expenses which are to be met out of the Common Poor Fund. Let me take one particular instance:
The amount so repaid in. respect of maintenance shall he at the rate of 5d. per day for each poor person.
That is a matter of actual expenditure by boards of guardians which is only ascertainable at the end of a period. According to Section 202, the District Auditor has to certify what are the sums that have been rightfully expended and are entitled to be claimed out of this fund. Now we are to have an entirely new system set up. We are to have a system dealing not with actual payments, but with what boards of guardians estimate they may have to spend on services repayable from the Common Poor Fund. They have to submit these estimates to the Metropolitan Asylum Board, which knows even less of the subject than boards of guardians. On the other hand boards axe entitled to be repaid on
certain particular items and the district auditor has to consider that in determining exactly what amount he shall allow out of the Common Poor Fund.
What is to happen supposing that in regard to the particular item I mentioned in Section 199, which is the payment for in-maintenance, the boards of guardians estimate that they are going to spend, say, 1,000 fivepences? Supposing the Metropolitan Asylum Board cuts it down to 900, that becomes the amount that may be paid out to the boards of guardians from the Common Poor Fund. But supposing they actually spend 1,200 fivepences, then under the Poor Law Act, 1927, they are entitled to receive the sum actually expended. That happens to be, say, 1,200 fivepences. Who is to decide between them? I do not think that this matter has been raised before, but if I had been present I should have raised it. It seems to me that this Bill is entirely misconceived. The whole basis of the Metropolitan Common Poor Friend does not deal with estimates of boards of guardians. It deals with the repayment to boards of guardians of certain sums that have actually been expended. They are entitled to recover them if they have been expended for certain purposes on a certain definite scale laid down in the Act of Parliament. To superimpose on the top of that an examination of the estimates by another body, an entirely different method of certification, beats me entirely. I can see no reference in this Bill to the unfortunate individual, the receiver of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. I do not know how he is to act. Perhaps he will be all right if he obeys the orders of the district auditor. I do not know what the district auditor is to do, whether he is to obey the law under the Poor Law Act, 1927, or a totally unrelated law which is proposed to be brought in by this Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to reconcile these anomalies when he replies. That is the first point I wish to make against this Bill, namely, that it is entirely out of accord with the whole of the provisions of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
The second point is, that the machinery the Minister has set up is the Metropolitan Asylum Board. He says that it is
purely a little temporary expedient. I have told the Parliamentary Secretary, and I will tell the Minister also, that temporary expedients in Poor Law are very apt to become permanent. If you merely look at this purely temporary post-War emergency legislation, I think it is the fifth or sixth time that it has had to be made more permanent, and now we come along with a little more temporary legislation. It reminds me of some form rooms we used to have at school, and which were always known as temporary form rooms. They had been so for 45 years, and very unpleasant they were. They were just about as conformable to the general structure of that college as is this Bill to the general structure of Loudon local government. The Minister says he has looked round to see where he could place this piece of legislation, and he has fixed on the Metropolitan Asylum Board. The Minister, we all know, has a very great knowledge of Birmingham and Birmingham government, but I do not think he knows very much about London government. I am certain that he knows very little about the Metropolitan Asylum Board, because he has selected the Metropolitan Asylum Board as the responsible body which, he thinks, will deal with any excess of expenditure. I have been a member of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, and most of the members on that Board are the same as when I was on it, and I can assure the House we had not the reputation for economy at all.
That Board consists of a great many amiable, rather elderly ladies and gentlemen who take very great interest in a number of institutions. Some are hospitals, some are children's homes and so forth. They all develop a laudable interest in those particular institutions, and everyone is prepared to fight in order to get all the best things possible for his or her institution. When they come together what happens is this. They have their estimates, and one member says to another, "Look here, there is Queen Mary's Home wants something, and I want to get an extra £10,000. Will you back me up?" Another says, "Certainly, old chap, if you will back me up in this other thing." We had a celebrated economist on the Board, Mr. Geoffrey Drage, who was always writing to the papers about the enormous expenditure
on social services; but, as a member of the Board, he was not a great economist, because, like the other members, he had a special interest. He wanted to get through something for the training ship and so on, and in order to succeed in that he would help other members in connection with other things. The Board which this Bill is setting up as a great, finance authority is not very strong on finance. Among the London authorities they are the most spendthrift people of the whole lot. If they were called the Poplar Board instead of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, the Minister of Health would have been after their blood a long time ago. The members of the Metropolitan Asylum Board are very keen on certain institutions and on doing the best for them, but they are not an authority which has to meet the ratepayers, they have none of the trouble of raising the rates, and as they are a precepting authority they do not have to bear the blame if the rates go up in London.
A curious position set up by this Bill is that the Metropolitan Asylum Board are to be the supreme financial authority over the boards of guardians, although they are competitors for a share of the same Metropolitan purse. There is one purse in London, the rates, and there are many demands upon it. The chief demands upon the purse are made by the London County Council, the Metropolitan borough councils, the boards of guardians and the Metropolitan Asylum Board. If any one body gets too much, it is worse for the rest, because there is a limit to which you can put up the rates. The Metropolitan Asylum Board as a competitor for a share of the public purse will be in a position to say to another competitor, a. board of guardians, "You must be cut down." I would ask: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who is to cut down the Metropolitan Asylum Board? They sent their precepts once to Poplar, but Poplar would not pass them. The Minister did not know them, but, as they were supposed to be economical, he has put them into a position that they can get their precept, whether Poplar likes it or not. Now, the Minister of Health is setting up the Metropolitan Asylum Board as a special finance body to look after the morals of the boards of guardians. It is a
wonderful thing. I do not think we have had anything better since Gilbert and Sullivan.
Let us see how this proposal fits in with the general local government work of London. What have been the special developments of the Metropolitan Asylum Board? From being a Poor Law authority, they have become a purely health authority. When I was a member of the Board, we were taking steps to see how far we could rid the Metro politan Asylum Board of its old associations. Many of the members objected to the word "asylum" as applied to the Board, because "asylum" seemed generally to denote lunacy. One member did suggest that the word "asylum" meant a place of rest. The Board has struggled not to be thought a lunacy authority. It has struggled not to be thought a mere Poor Law authority. It has developed into a very fine health authority. While I was on the Board, not long ago, the Board approved of a reconstitution by which it could be made up of representatives of health authorities and not representatives of Poor Law authorities, and I believe the Minister of Health at that time was inclined to approve of that.
Now the Minister of Health comes along and wants to put back the Board into the Poor Law. Whereas it was concentrating upon health work, he wants to put it back into the cockpit of London politics in connection with the Poor Law, because we have to recognise that this is part of the municipal policy which the Minister of Health has been carrying on for a long time. We had great hopes of the present Minister of Health when he went to the Ministry, but he has been like Mr. Dick for the last two years. King Charles' head has really become King George's head, the head of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. Whenever the Minister is dealing with anything regarding public health or the Poor Law, his one idea seems to be to hit the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley over the head. That is why, instead of producing something really fine in local government legislation, he has produced a number of little, petty, partisan Bills. He thinks that he is going to control the spending
boroughs, but again ho is upsetting the whole of London government. That is a serious point.
10.0 p.m.
The excuse is made that the Bill is only a temporary arrangement. You can do a great deal of harm by temporary restrictions on a growing child. We hoped that London was gradually growing up into some sort of municipal shapeliness. It has been a most appalling problem for many years, and just as we were straightening out local government matters in London the Minister of Health comes along and for a little temporary purpose, which is quite unnecessary, tries to wrench back the natural development of a great hospital authority, a great health authority, and to throw it back into the Poor Law. That is not necessary. The right hon. Gentleman has ample power over the boards of guardians through the district auditors and through control of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. The work of the district auditors has been made effective for the Minister's purpose, but I think he has rather spoilt his own district auditors by imposing upon them this wretched little Bill.
The next point, is that the right hon. Gentleman does not give any instruction to the Metropolitan Asylum Board. He takes these amiable ladies and gentlemen, very distantly connected with popular election, these people who are interested in various hospitals and so on, and gives then, a very difficult task. They have to review the estimates of the boards of guardians in London. With regard to what the expenditure ought to be he does not give them any guidance, and there is no criterion in the Bill. There is nothing laid down by which they are to judge. They are by their own sweet will to look at the estimates and to approve them or, if they like, reduce them. Why cannot they be allowed to increase them? They are supposed to be super-judges. They are supposed to be much better than the Fulham, Westminster or Islington authorities in judging what expenditure will be necessary. As they are to be allowed to reduce the estimates, why cannot they be allowed to increase them?
Are there not some boards of guardians which are niggardly in expenditure, as well as some which are wasteful? This is an effort to cut down expenditure.
It is not an effort to improve local administration. It is a little cheese-paring piece of a sort of charity organisation policy, to which, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman has descended. As it stands the Bill is perfectly worthless. When examined it will be found that the proposals in it conflict with the existing law. It is perfectly certain that you will have friction between the boards of guardians and the Metropolitan Asylum Board, and if the Bill continues for two or three years the members of the Metropolitan Asylum Board instead of being there because of their public heath work will be there because of their attitude towards the finances of boards of guardians. In fact, you will spoil what is a useful health authority by trying to divert it to other uses. On all these grounds I think this Bill, even at this late hour, should be thrown out. It is quite unworthy of the Minister and of this House. It only adds new confusion to local government in London.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to second the Amendment. It is very significant that during the whole course of the Debate not one single hon. Member representing a London constituency has ventured to say a single word in justification of any of the proposals of this Bill. The reason for that is very plain. Every local government authority in London which has considered the matter has condemned the Bill. Even the London County Council, with its great municipal reform majority, has expressed the opinion that the Metropolitan Asylum Board is not a competent authority to deal with this question. Every board of guardians in London has done exactly the same thing. Since the Bill left the Committee I am given to understand that the Hammersmith Board of Guardians, which is not under the control of the Labour party, have passed a resolution condemning it and asking its representative on the Metropolitan Asylum Board to vote against it. The City of London Union has expressed an opinion against it, and every one who comes into contact with local government administration in London, no matter what their political views may be, unanimously condemn the proposals in this Bill.
As a Londoner I protest against the insult offered by the Minister of Health to the whole of local government in
London. It would not be tolerated by any provincial authority. London is simply to be regarded as a Cinderella, to be dealt with in any way the Government pleases. Authority after authority has been created in order to take away from the elected representatives the right to say anything at all in regard to their own administration. This is the worst possible example we have had of this kind of legislation. The obedient majority behind the Government will, of course, go into the Lobby in support of the Bill. That goes without saying; it is the practice of this House. But I really should have thought, after considering all the arguments on the Second Reading; all the arguments used in the Committee stage and now on the Report stage, and especially as all local government authorities in London have taken the view they have, that the right hon. Gentleman would have made considerable concessions in regard to this particular body.
I once had the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was a strong man, who really was concerned with getting things done. I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman is not a strong man. He is an obstinate man, and obstinate men, as a rule, are very weak men. The person who is not obstinate is a man who is not afraid to meet his opponents and their arguments, and when they are supported by a volume of public opinion is not above correcting his own views. The right hon. Gentleman is obstinate, and having put forward this particular view in this Bill, is sticking to every phrase, every comma, hoping that by so doing he is doing something for local self-government. He is not. Ho is doing the worst possible harm to local self-government, and he will be remembered as the Minister of Health who did his best to destroy all that was best in the local government of London, and did everything he could to take the control of local affairs from the hands of the democratically elected representatives of the people.

Mr. HARRIS: I have supported all the Amendments which have been proposed in order to make this Measure a more workable Bill. It is conceived in the wrong spirit; I am afraid will be unworkable. But I have to face the facts, and Clause 1 continues a most necessary provision for the help of the
poorer districts. I have to ask myself whether, because I do not like the form of this particular Bill, I am going to vote against it, seeing that it is going to continue this very necessary provision. I think it is unwise to oppose a Bill because it is not in exactly the form one would like. My own view has been expressed more than once—namely, that the Bill is not necessary of the Minister of Health had produced his Poor Law scheme. In that case this clumsy and makeshift arrangement would not have been required. But as long as we are without Poor Law reform and the present machinery of local government exists in London, something of this kind is obviously necessary. It continues provisions which have now been in existence for four or five years. Personally, I cannot recommend my friends to vote against the Third Reading because it is necessary that the able-bodied poor should be a charge on the Common Poor Fund and not thrown on to the localities and the poorer districts of London. While I do not think that it is a workable scheme, I have to recognise that it is better than nothing, and, therefore, I shall support the Third Reading.

Mr. RYE: I disagree with the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) who said that no one who was interested in local government in London was in favour of the Bill. I suggest that all the contributing authorities are very much in favour of the Bill. It may possibly be that some of them do not like the Board of Control that is to be set up, but that is quite a different thing to saying that they do not want control, and I should be astonished if those who have had to pay heavily since 1921 do not want the fullest possible control over the spending authorities. Let me remind the House of the enormous increase that has taken place since 1921, when for the first time outdoor relief was put on the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. As an example take the City of Westminster. The result of the burden placed on the ratepayers—a burden that was accepted very willingly—was the equivalent of a 4d. rate. Last year the contribution equalled a 1s. 10d. rate, a very large increase which in arithmetic worked out at £883,968. As
another instance I cite the case of the Borough of Holborn. In the first year of payment it had to contribute £5,000. Last year it had to pay £143,351. With the knowledge of these figures, it is rather extraordinary for the hon. Member for Mile End seriously to suggest to an intelligent audience that those who have had to pay and have had to suffer from predatory hands being put into their purse, should raise the slightest objection to the method of control. There is not the slightest objection, so far as the City of Westminster, to which I have the honour to belong, is concerned.

Mr. SCURR: Will the hon. Member please give the name of a single local governing authority that has approved the Metropolitan Asylum Board as the controlling authority? That is what I said, that not a single authority had approved.

Mr. RYE: I am not discussing the board of control that is set up. I was dealing with the statement made by the hon. Member, which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, of course, and that statement, I understood, was that no one who was interested in local government in London accepted this Bill and was satisfied with the Bill. That statement I deny in toto. There is no question whatever that those who have to pay, and pay heavily, are only too pleased to see this system of control. Let me deal now with the statement made by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence). She made a complaint in Committee upstairs as to the time that is wasted in this House on certain Measures relating to local authorities. Whose fault is it that the time of the House has been wasted over these Measures? There are the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, the Audit (Local Authorities) Act, and now this Bill. Whose fault is it that they are introduced? The fault is that of the Socialist party and their method of local government in London. Time after time they have been found guilty of maladministration, of reckless extravagance, and of illegal payment when they have taken control of local government.

Miss LAWRENCE: I ask the hon. Member to give a single date and
occasion on which one of the Socialist boards of London has been found guilty of an illegal practice.

Mr. RYE: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that there is no evidence of illegal or unlawful payment in the case of Poplar?

Miss LAWRENCE: Yes, I do. I deny that there has been a single case of maladministration or illegal practice by the Socialist party.

Mr. RYE: I think the hon. Lady is straining the intelligence of the House too far.

Miss LAWRENCE: It is the fact that before Poplar fell into the hands of the Labour party and before there was a Labour majority, there were some illegal practices, but not since, and I challenge the hon. Member to give the House a single instance in support of his statement.

Mr. RYE: Luckily there are the records, and there is the decision of the House of Lords. Does the hon. Member say that there are no instances of extravagant administration by boards of guardians under the control of the Socialist party? If so, perhaps she will account for the fact that it was recorded officially in connection with Bermondsey, that with a population of 110,000 people, during the week ending 29th October, 1927, no fewer than 16,855, or 15 per cent., were in receipt of outdoor relief. How does the bon. Member account for the fact that in Woolwich it was found that one-third of the outdoor relief paid by the guardians to able-bodied persons was in direct contravention of the Relief Registration Order of 1911? Does the hon. Member deny that in Greenwich recently it was recorded that one in every 18 was in receipt of Poor Law relief?

Mr. ATTLEE: That is not illegal.

Mr. RYE: I said cases of extravagance, not of illegality. Is it not the case that in Deptford there was one out of 15 and in Greenwich one out, of every 12?

Mr. BROAD: Can the hon. Member tell us the percentage at Hanley?

Mr. RYE: I do not think the question of Hanley arises.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It spells the end of the Tory Government and of the Liberal party as well.

Mr. RYE: I would, however, remind the hon. Member who has interrupted me of the case which took place at Birtley, in the area of Chester-le-Street, where certain individuals stood at the table after outdoor relief had been granted and uttered the pleasing cry: "Please to remember the poor guardians." If there has been delay in connection with these Measures, it has been due to hon. Members opposite. They and their friends have been responsible for the state of affairs which has led to these Measures, and I am by no means certain that the chief offender is not the hon. Gentleman who was designated by the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) to-night as "King George." I am inclined to think that "King George," if indeed he is a king, is largely responsible for half the trouble that has occurred in London. I think most of the extravagance in London has been incited by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). I am by no means sure that we do not want a fourth Measure, a Bill of one Clause which would have the effect of incarcerating the hon. Member and putting him under lock and key for the next 10 years. We might then have no need for further Measures such as this Bill.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is in complete harmony with Tory tradition that we should have spent half of this Session on a Bill giving additional votes to the people and the other half in taking away power from the people who are elected. Up to half-past seven this evening, the Conservative slogan was, "Trust the people." Since half-past seven, they have been producing evidence to show that the people ought not be trusted. During the Boer War an article was written by an American humourist named Dooley, the gist of which was that Kruger made a mistake in refusing votes to the Outlanders, and that, he ought to have given them the votes but insisted on his right to count them at election times. I think the Government must have studied the philosophy of Dooley in this respect. They have now arrived at the view that they can safely give votes to the people through the Home Secre-
tary, as long as they have the present Minister of Health to deal with the people who receive the votes. The primary object of this Measure is to place elected people under the supervision of non-elected people. I take it that very few members of the Labour party are on the nominated section of the Metropolitan Asylum Board. The nominated section of that Board are carefully selected to protect the interests of the selectors. That being the case, it is not surprising that this House should have been informed, within the past five minutes, that the electors of this country are in revolt. After all, it is very encouraging to find, in the course of the discussion of this reactionary Measure, that 5,000 electors in Hanley who supported the Government in 1924 are now in deadly opposition to them.
Then, if you follow the Bill a little further, you find the same Tory point of view. For instance, the Emergency Provisions Act, which extends the Common Poor Fund for four years longer, has as its principle that the rich in London should contribute to the maintenance of the poor in London. The hon. Member who has just spoken appealed to us on behalf of poor Westminster, which was being over-rated to maintain Poplar. It is surprising to me that these people should never see the other point of view, that Westminster could not be rich but for the labour of Poplar, that they rely on the welfare that is produced by the class who are the majority in Poplar, that when that class are fully employed these people in Westminster take full advantage of their employment, but immediately a trade depression comes along, caused by the system of which they are the defenders, then, although they have benefited during the period of prosperity, they wish to run away from their obligations during the period of adversity. They want the poor to maintain the poor and allow the rich to get away with his spoils which they have made under the profit-making system.
Just exactly the same principle is being applied here as that to which I have referred. The Minister of Health, in the first Clause of the Bill, extends the power of compelling Westminster to contribute to the maintenance of the Poplar poor, and then he proceeds, in the second
Clause, to create machinery that will enable Westminster and the other contributing bodies to withhold the money which they are compelled to contribute under the first part of the Bill. Is not that exactly what is happening, that Westminster is compelled to contribute to the Common Poor Fund by the Emergency Provisions Act, but that Westminster, under this Bill, would be enabled to use its representation on the Metropolitan Asylum Board to prevent Poplar from availing itself of the contributions that are made by the contributing authorities? The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill pointed out the existing powers of the Minister of Health and said that the present Measure was totally unnecessary. I agree with that, and no one has given stronger evidence of the power of the Minister of Health than the present occupant of that office. He has specialised in suppressing Boards of Guardians during the past two or three years, so successfully that he has now improved, in this Bill, on his methods of depriving them of their powers. Formerly, he could only deal with Chester-le-Street, West Ham, and boards of that description. Now he is dealing with them in a wholesale manner.
This Bill proposes to deal with all the boards of guardians in London. He is carrying out the same policy on a large scale, but sheltering himself behind the Metropolitan Asylum Board. As has been pointed out already, is it not significant that this body is to have no power to increase the estimates? It is machinery set up to attack the poor, but it has no power to protect the poor. I submit that the business of Parliament, if it is going to deal impartially with economic conditions as they exist to-day, is to see that the administering body has machinery, at any rate, for the people who are to be dealt with. After all, the Poor Law exists for the protection of the poor; it does not exist for the protection of the rich, who are able to protect themselves.
The machinery here is expressly designed to attack the poor, and to protect the rich against the maintenance of the poor during the periods of poverty which the rich have created. All this is characteristic of Toryism. They are enemies of the poor, who have gulled the
poor into giving them Parliamentary majorities, and they have used their power, gained by fraud and forgery, to punish the people who have been duped into electing them. It is true that this Bill applies only to London. It is being tried on the dog first, and we shall all have it if London tolerates it. I can never understand why London should be so servile under the attacks that are frequently made upon it. Members opposite talk about Poplar as if it were a place of which to be ashamed. I do not think that I would be going too far in saying that in the Ministry of Health Poplar is one of the most admired local authorities, and that the standard of administration which it sets up, and the spirit of humanity which it introduces into its work, is the admiration of every one who has a real interest in the public life of the country. All that they object to is the necessary finance for carrying out this humane policy, and they prefer the policy of inhumanity, rather than that a few pounds should be taken out of the surplus wealth that they have wrung from the bodies and souls of the people of this country.

Sir K. WOOD: I hardly think that it is necessary to follow the speech that has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman, except to remind him that, as far as my knowledge goes, everyone, even on his own side, is not particularly in favour of Poplar and Poplarism. I remember very well the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, describing Poplarism as a nightmare that we should get rid of as speedily as possible. This Bill, perhaps, may do a little in that direction. I would remind the House of the necessity for this Bill, and the reasons which have actuated my right hon. Friend in introducing it to the House. Anyone who has listened to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and of one or two other Members would say that this Bill was introduced with some malicious motive, and that there was no necessity whatever for interfering with the present position of affairs in London. It is, of course, not surprising to anyone who listens to their speeches as carefully as I do to note the confusion of thought and, indeed, the contradictions which appear in a great many of the speeches from the benches opposite. The
hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) persists in stating that my right hon. Friend has sufficient powers, and that there is no need to introduce this Bill or to interpose any authority to check the various Boards of Guardians in relation to the Common Poor Fund. But there is another statement which has been made in the course of the Debates upon this Bill which I should like to read to the House:
It is very wrong that the Boroughs of Poplar and Bermondsey should tax these other bodies without Westminster and the City having anything to say in the matter.
Then there is another statement, that those who pay the piper ought to call the tune.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Hear, hear! That is the working classes.

Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member will wait a moment he will be rather surprised when he hears who said that. This other statement has also been made:
We are willing to give the paying boroughs predominant rights.
That is not the statement of the Minister of Health or anyone speaking from the Government side, but the statement of the hon. Lady the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), who has made such powerful contributions to this and to the other Debates in the House. In those three statements are the real reason for the introduction of this Bill. Anyone who gives impartial scrutiny to affairs in London in relation to the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund knows that the present position is utterly impossible. When we have admissions such as this that the paying boroughs practically have no control, and when we have heard from time to time of the action of the various boroughs in London which receive the money, surely we must feel that the time has arrived when there must be control so far as this particular aspect of London government is concerned. With one or two notorious exceptions upon the Benches opposite there is practically no dispute that there must be control, and the only controversy that has seriously centred round this Bill is as to the method of control that should be adopted.
I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite centre their criticism upon the Metropolitan Asylum Board. If we had
put forward the London County Council me should have been in exactly the same position. I can picture to myself what would have been said if the London County Council had been suggested as the body to exercise supervision and control in this matter. Hon. Members opposite would have said we had chosen a Tory machine. Whatever body had been suggested there would have been the same criticism from hon. Members opposite. The real fact is that they want no control. They are saying to-night, and I was surprised to bear the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) joining in, "Why do not you bring forward a measure of Poor Law reform, that is the way to deal with it?" Anyone giving a moment's consideration to the subject would know full well that this matter needs to be attended to immediately, and what we have to consider to-night is whether the machinery provided in this Bill is suitable and is likely to work, and, at any rate during what we hope will be a temporary period, will give some measure of control and justice to people who have to pay large sums of money—and quite rightly, under proper supervision—for the relief of the poorer parts of London. I suggest that the criticisms which have been made in regard to the Metropolitan Asylum Board will prove to be utterly unfounded. That Board has hitherto performed the work which has been given to it to do in relation to the health of London with the general admiration of London itself. Hon. Members opposite have spoken of the efforts which have been made in the direction of improving the health of London in many ways, and why this occasion should be seized upon to make an attack upon a body of this kind can only be capable of one explanation, and that is that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want any authority at all to deal with these matters.
The Asylum Board has some knowledge of Poor Law administration. Many of its members are Poor Law guardians themselves, and my own view is that if we review the work of the Metropolitan Asylum Board after carrying out its duties under this Bill for 12 months, it will be found that they have brought a careful and sympathetic consideration to this work in many parts of London, and I am sure they will give a very careful scrutiny to the estimates with which they have to
deal. I do not think hon. Members opposite need anticipate that this Board will work harshly. The Committee will be expected to compare the estimates of one Board with similar Boards in different parts of London, and they will hear the view of representatives of other boards of guardians. I suggest that they will come to conclusions which any body of men desiring to give an impartial decision on matters of this kind would come to. There will be no difficulty in the Metropolitan Asylum Board following out the provisions of this Bill.
The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill suggested that in some way or other the Bill conflicted with the existing law. One of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill is to amend the existing law. If any board of guardians finds that the amount sanctioned by the Metropolitan Asylum Board has been exhausted they are able to and a supplementary estimate and present it to the Board. If upon that occasion, or upon the submission of the original estimate the whole sum asked for is not approved, it will not then he a question of the recipients being deprived of their relief. The just thing to do under those circumstances will be that that particular borough will have to bear that particular excessive cost on its own account.

Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman is not reconciling the difference between the case relating to the estimates on the one hand and the repayment of ascertained expenditure on the other

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think there would he any difficulty in that direction, and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the machinery of this Bill will work very well indeed. I commend this Bill to the House. I certainly regard it, as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley said, as one of a number of Bills which my right hon. Friend has introduced into this House and which have met with considerable success. The hon. Gentleman criticised the Bill that was introduced in relation to audits, and the necessity for certain authorities in London complying with the law. That Measure had a most remarkable effect, because, even before it reached the Statute Book, the local authorities in London were already obeying the law. It may be that this Bill will be a worthy successor to those others
which have done a good deal to cut down extravagance and to vindicate local administration in this country. So far from there being an endeavour to defeat democratic government, a Measure like this and the two others which have been cited are really an endeavour to save local government. The people who are endeavouring to defeat it and to destroy democratic rights in this country are the people who are abusing it. Therefore, I venture to suggest that this Bill will be equally successful in its working, and will certainly end abuses and extravagances and mal-administration which have been existing for far too long in London.

Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to try once more to clear up the point about control. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his chief are either, as I said some time ago, very dense, or we put our point of view in such a way that ordinary people do not understand it. I would like to tell the house that one of the first things that were done by the Poplar Board of Guardians, somewhere about 30 years ago, was to ask that the President of the Local Government Board at that time should form London into one district for dealing with the Poor Law, and we have adhered to that ever since. The right hon. Gentleman himself, earlier in the evening, admitted that he at least understood that the reason why I objected to this form of control was that the people who were going to exercise control had no responsibility for the administration, and that what we wanted was an authority that would be responsible both for the administration and for the expenditure of the money. I adhere to that, and I do not think that either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary has any right to continue to say that we who object to this particular form of control do not want any control whatsoever.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), the late Minister of, Health, is, I am sure, in agreement with me that the position in London, with 28 different boards of guardians representing rich and poor districts, is an anomaly and ought to be got rid of, and that the proper way to get rid of it is to constitute one authority for London to deal with the whole business. There is no disagreement between us about that, but the
Government have not taken that course. They have produced a scheme which to-night has been fairly riddled by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), and the right hon. Gentleman has ridden off and not attempted to answer him. In this Bill there is provision for continuing the payment of 1s. 3d. per day for each person relieved in an institution and 9d. per day for each person relieved outside an institution and there are also other provisions connected with the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund in regard to the salaries, wages, etc., of certain officials. What I want to know, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse asked someone to tell us, is, how the Metropolitan Asylum Board can override the first part of this Bill if it is not going to interfere with individual cases, and the right hon. Gentleman, earlier in the evening, told us that the Metropolitan Asylum Board was not going to do anything of the kind.
There is the dilemma which you are in, and which the first part of the Bill proposes to carry on. What is the law at present? One shilling and threepence per day for each inmate and ninepence per for each persons relieved outside. If the Metropolitan Asylum Board cuts down the estimates, to which part of the expenditure is that going to apply—to the relief out of doors or indoors or to salaries of officials? No one has answered that question, because it is unanswerable, and, when you tell us that we are opposing this Bill merely in a captious manner and not from proper motives, I say that you are putting before us a Bill which is completely contradictory. You cannot in one and the same Bill lay it down that certain money is to be paid, and then say to another body: "In the gross, you can cut it down." I would like the right hon. Gentleman to ask the permission of the House to tell us exactly how this thing will work, because I will tell the House another thing that happens and which upstairs neither of the right hon. Gentlemen chose to answer. At this time of year the boards of guardians in London send either to the Minister or to the Receiver of the Common Poor Fund—I do not remember which—for approval a budget showing the expenditure on officers; that is, the cost which each union will have to bear in regard to officers, the salaries, wages, etc.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if his Department has approved of the expenditure on these officers, whether the Metropolitan Asylum Board is going to have the right to revise them? Are the boards of guardians to have to defend the number of offiers and their salaries first to the right hon. Gentleman and then again to another revising body, the Metropolitan Asylum Board, because that comes up here, and no amount of just edging off and saying unpleasant things to us gets rid of the facts of the case, and neither right hon. Gentleman can deny the truth of what I am saying. Therefore, you are putting us in this most. extraordinary position, that the Bill does quite definitely say that a certain sum per head—it does not deal with gross payments at all—shall be paid and that salaries and wages shall be paid, and then you tell us that the Board that is to revise it is not to have anything to do with individual cases but to look at the estimate as a- whole and cut it down. I say there is no rhyme or reason about such a proposition as that.
There is one other thing on which I want to say a word. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Rye) has told us that we were responsible for all these small Bills. That may very well be that from the hon. Member's point of view, but it is not from the point of view of electors who get the chance of voting. We may be quite wrong, but our contention against small piece-meal, stupid, legislation such as this, is that the time that has been spent on all these small Bills would have proved much more than sufficient to carry the scheme which we understand the right hon. Gentleman has got in the pigeon holes of his office. Had he taken the whole of the time spent on these various small Measures we should have had one comprehensive Measure. I want before I sit down to repeat, even at the risk of being accused of repetition, that we on this side, not merely to-day, but for the last 25 years, have been urging that this business of Poor Law relief and administration should be reformed. It is no use telling us because we object to this stupid,
ridiculous Bill, which cannot possibly work, nor is it any use trying to make people believe, that we are in favour of keeping things as they are.
I have always said, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition when he said that Poplarism is a nightmare—and it is a nightmare to anyone who has to administer it—meant that the House of Commons long ago should have tackled the causes which produce poverty and pauperism in the land. It is not sufficient to pass penal Measures. You may very well say, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Audit Act before it was actually law was able to accomplish certain things. If he himself was threatened with ruin unless he did certain things, whether they were legal or illegal, he would jolly well take care to preserve himself rather than be ruined. That is all that has happened. It does not mean when you shove poor people off the list of poor relief or prevent them getting assistance in any other way, that you have got rid of poverty. It does not mean that you have got rid even of pauperism. You have only shifted it from one place to another, and the position of the Labour party is that, instead of these trumpery Measures, especially of this Measure, which in this one direction of control we are certain will not work, hut, will simply irritate, Parliament should have devoted itself to much more beneficent Measures.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.